
Class „£jim 



Book 




L^rS- 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



No. 75. 




English -Classic Series 
• — =?i9 — • 



i -i-i- i - i - i-i-i-i-i-i-ii-i-i-i 






^ 



J 



.^^s. 



SPEECH 



IN 



REPLY TO HAYNE 



: BY : 



Daniel Webster. , 

I i_l-|-l_|x^|^|-t^|~|-|-|^j ^ 

^ NEW YORK: 

Effingham Maynakd & Co., 

SCCXJKSSORS TO 

Clark & Maynard, Fublishei-s, 
771 Broadway and 67 & 69 Ninth St. 

1890. 



=^1 






aKzassacsxisc 



isi 



KELLOGG'S EDITIONS. 



SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS. 

3Bacb plag in Qne IDoIume. 

Text Carefully Expxurgated f©r Use in Mixed Classes. 

With Portrait, Notes ^ Introduction to Shakespeare's, Grammar, 
Examinatio7i Papers^ and Plan of Study, 

(selected.) 

By BRAINERD KELLOGG, A.M., 

Professor of the English Language and LiteraUire in the Brooklyn Polytechnic 

Institute, and author of a " Text-Book on Rhetoric,''' a '' Text-Book on 

English Literature,'''' and one of the authors of Reed dt 

Kellogg's " Lessons in English,'''' 



The notes have been especially prepared and selected, to meet tbe 
requirements of School and College Students, from editions by emi- 
nent English scholars. 

We are confident that teachers who examine these editions will pro- 
nounce them better adapted to the wants of the class-room than any 
others published. These are the only Anieriean Editions 
of these Plays that have been carefully expurgated 
lor use in mixed classes. 

Printed from large type, attractively bound in cloth, and sold at 
nearly one half the price of other School Editions of Shakespeare. 

TVie following Plays, each in one volume, are now ready : 



MERCHANT OF VENICE. 

JULIUS Ci^SAR. 

MACBETH. 

TEMPEST. 

HAMLET. 

KING HENRY V. 

KING LEAR. 



KING HENRY IV., Part I. 

KING HENRY VIII. 

AS YOU LIKE IT. 

KING RICHARD III. 

A MIDSUMMER-NIGHT'S 

DREAM. 
A WINTER'S TALE. 



Mailing ^,r ice f 30 cents per copy. Special Price to Teachers. 



Full Descriptive Cata.jgue sent on application. 



Z-EZ.: rfMa,; 



ENGLISH CLASSIC SERIES.-No. 75. 



SrEEOii ijs^ Reply to IIayi^e. 



DELIVERED IN TUE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES^ 

JANUARY 2Qth, 1830. 

/ 

By Daniel Webster. 



Witf) aSiofirapfifcal Sfectcfj aitlr Jrittrotructiom 




NEW YORK : 

I » EFFiN'GnAM Maynard & Co., Pltblishees, 

771 Broadway and 67 & G9 Ninth Street. 



\<^< 



A 



t^ 



•10355 



A Complete course in the Study of English. 



Spelling, Language, Grammar, Composition, Literature, 

Reed's Word Lessons — A Complete Speller. 

Reed &. Kellogg's Graded Lessons in English. 
Reed &. Kellogg's Higher Lessons in English. 
Kellogg's Text-Book on Rhetoric. 

Kellogg's Text-Book on English Literature. 



In the preparation of this series the authors have had one object 
clearly in view — to so develop the study of the English language as to 
present a complete, progressive course, from the Spelling-Book to the 
study of English Literature. The troublesome contradictions which 
arise in using books arranged by different authors on these subjects, 
and which require much time for explanation in the school-room, will 
be avoided by the use of the above " Complete Course." 

Teachers are earnestly invited to examine these books. 

Effingham Maynakd & Co., Publishers, 

771 Broadway, New York. 



Copyright, 1890, by 
EFFINGHAM MAYNARD & CQ. 



■-44r-=ia-e^ 



LIFE OF DAKTEL WEBSTER. 



Dantf.Tj "Webstetj, one of the greatest orators and statesmen 
that tliis rountry ever produced, was Lorn in tlio town of Salis- 
bury (now known as Franklin), New llani])sliiro, on the isth 
of January, 17S2. His father, Ebenezer Webster, was a distin- 
guished soldier and ollicor in the lievolutionary War. After 
the war, he moved with his hirge family into what was then the 
savage wilds of New Hampshire. He was a man of little book- 
learning, but Avith his strong mind and vigorous frame ho be- 
came a sort of intellectual leader in his neighborhood. He was 
appointed a "side-judge" for the county, a place of considera- 
ble intluence in those days. His great aim was to educate his 
children to the utmost of his limited al)ility. Captain Webster 
married Abigail Eastman for a second wife. She wasaAvoman 
of more than ordinary intellect, and possessed a force of char- 
acter which was felt throughout the humble circle in which she 
n:oved. She was ambitious for her two sons, Ezekiel and 
Daniel, that they shouhl excel. The distinction attained by 
both, and esj^ecially by Daniel, may well be traced in part to 
her early i^romptings and judicious guidance. In the last year 
of the Revolutionary AVar, in the humble house which his 
father had built in the woods on the outskirts of civilization, 
Daniel Webster was born. During his childhood, he was sickly 
and delicate, and gave no promise of the robust and vigorous 
frame which he had in his manhood. It may well be supposed 
that his early opportunities for education were very scanty. 
Because he was frail and delicate, Daniel's parents took great 
pains to send him to the winter schools, oftentimes three miles v 
away from home. As an older half-brother said, " Dan was 
sent to school that he might get to know as much as the other 
boys." It is probable that the best part of his early education 
was derived from the judicious and experienced father, and the 
resolute, affectionate and ambitious mother. In those days 
books were very scarce and Daniel eagerly read every book ho 
could lind. He was fond of poetry and at the age "of twelve 
could repeat from memory the greater part of Watts' "Psalins . 
andHymns." In his " Autobiography " hesays: "I remember 
that my father brought home from" some of the lower towns 
Pope's Essay on Man, published in a sort of pamphlet. I took 
it, and very soon could repeat it from beginning to end. We 
had so few books, that to read them once or twice was nothing. 
We thought they were all to be got by heart." At the age of 
fourteen, he was sent to Phillips Academy, in Exeter, N. H.. 
\)ut remained only nine months on account of the poverty oi 

3 



4 LIFE OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 

the family. The future orator found his greatest trouble at 
Exeter in deolaiming:. "Many a jnece," says Webster "did 
I foinniit to memory, and recite and rehearse, in my own 
room, over and over again; yet when the day came, when the 
school collected to hear declamations, when my name Avas 
called, and I saw all eyes tiirned to my seat, I could not raise 
myself from it. When the occasion was over, I went home 
and wept bitter tears of mortification." He now studied with 
a clergyman at liome and entered Dartmouth College in 1797. 
The familiar story of how young Webster "worked his Avay" 
through college and the self-denial and rigid economy he exer- 
cised is told in liis "Autobiography." After graduation, hard 
pushed for money while studying law, how he took charge of 
an academy at Fryeburg, Maine, for one dollar a day. He paid 
his board by copying deeds and sent his spare money to help 
his brother^Ezekiel through Dartmouth. Webster was admit- 
ted to the bar in 1805, began practice in Boscawen, and after- 
wards in Portsmouth. He took a high rank in his profession 
at once, and, in 1812, was elected a member of Congress. In 
1816, he declined a re-election and removed to Boston. In the 
next seven years he worked long and hard in his profession and 
soon established his reputation as one of the ablest lawyers of 
the land. In 1822 he was again sent to Congress and in 1828 he 
was chosen a Senator. He remained in the Senate for twelve 
years, when he was appointed Secretary of State by President 
Harrison. In 1845 he returned to the Senate, and remained 
until 1850, when he became Secretary of State under President 
Fillmore. He resigned his office early in 1852 on account of his 
health and retired to his home by the seaside at Marshfield, 
Mass., where he died Octoljer 24 of the same year. 

Daniel Webster is universally acknowledged to be the fore- 
most of constitutional lawyers and of parliamentary debaters, 
and without a peer in the highest realms of classic and patriotic 
oratory. Many of his orations, as the famous Bunker Hill 
^Monument orations, the eulogy upon Adams and Jefferson, the 
sjieech upon the trial of the murderers of Capt. Joseph White, 
the " Ueply to Hayne, " and others are universally accepted as 
classics in modern oratory. Physically, AVebster Avas a mag- 
niticent specimen of a man. Such a form, such a face, such a 
])resence, are rarely given to any man. Webster's manner had 
a wonderful impressiveness that intimacy never wore off. His 
gracious bearing and gentle courtesy made him the delight of 
every ])erson he ever met. His oratory was in perfect keeping 
with the man, gracious, logical, majestic, and often sublime. 
He was by nature free, generous and lavish in his manner of 
living. As a result his own private finances were often much 
embarrassed. His wealthy admirers often tided him over his 
financial straits. Hampered as he was financially, he never 
sullied Ills great liime or enriched himself or others'by political 
jobbery. 



Introduction. 

To iinclcrstiind fully tbc character ami importance of the Great 
Debate, as it was called in the newspapei-s of the day, something 
should be known of the circumstances that immediately preceded 
and accompanied it, and of the more distinguished persons who 
participated in it. 

It commenced in the Senate of the United States, in the 
month of January, 1830, during the first session of the Twenty- 
first Congress, and in the first year of the administration of 
Andrew Jackson; and lasted, with occasional hut brief interrup- 
tions, four months. 

Contemporaneous authority gives encouragement to a suspicion 
that previous to the introduction of Foote's resolutions respecting ^ 
the public lands, it had been determined by the leaders of the 
Jackson party to organize a crusade against Mr. Webster. The 
subsidized presses of the party were most violent in their abuse of 
his character, his history, and conduct. To revolutionize Kew 
England, too, was a purjiose they meditated and avowed; and, 
preparatory to its accomplishment, the overthrow of Mr. Webster 
seemed necessary. 

Whether such conspiracy was ever matured or not, one fact is 
incontestable— that the nearest and most po^verful friends of both 
the Vice-President and Secretary of State simultaneously attacked 
Mr. Webster, giving by the act to the world all the ordinary 
evidence of preconcerted purpose. It was a combination of great 
power, from the character and position of the parties who com- 
posed it. They were all men of ability and reputation. 

Benton discharged all sorts of missiles at the head of an adver- 
sary, like a catapult. Tropes, metaphors, similes, uns^ivory 
allusions, vituperative epithets, damnatory personalities, he hurled 
vpon the victim of his temporary anger. He neither sought nor 
gave quarter— one of the regular Black Hussars of debate. His 
manner, if possible, was yet more excited than his language, and 
his voice more belligerent than either. His whole attitude was 
defiance, and each gesture a provocation. On this occasion he 

5 



6 INTRODUCTION^. 

headed the assault upon Mr. Webster, or at least upon New 
England. And it is not improbable that Mr. Webster had him in 
view when, in his second speech, he spoke of "casting the 
characters of the drama, assigning to each his part; to one the 
attack, to another the cry of onset:" a supposition the more 
likely, as Mr. Benton in his speech justified the suspicion that an 
on.slaught upon New England and New England men had been 
premeditated before the introduction of this debate. 

Ha^'ue dashed into debate, like the Mameluke cavalry upon a 
charge. There was a gallant air about him, that could not but 
win admiration. He never provided for retreat; he never imagined 
it. He had an invincible confidence in himself, which arose 
partly from constitutional temperament, partly from previous 
success. His oratory was graceful and persuasive. An impas- 
sioned manner, somewhat vehement at times, but rarely if ever 
extravagant; a voice well modulated and clear; a distinct, though 
rapid enunciation; a confident, but not often offensive address: 
these, accompan5ing and illustrating language well selected and 
periods well turned, made him a popular and effective speaker. 

Colonel Hayne was, incontestably, the most formidable of Mr. 
Webster's opponents. He had more native and acquired ability 
than any of them Such is the concurrent opinion of all who 
witnessed this great forensic contest; among others, of the Hon. 
Mr. Everett of Massachusetts. > 

Such was the formidable character of the combination Mr. 
Webster found bimself compelled by circumstances to meet. 
Never before, in Parliamentary annals, did one man encounter 
such fearful odds. The whole moral influence of the adminis- 
tration was directed against Mr. Webster. This, powerful at all 
times, was doubly so now. 

But it is due the memory of the distinguished patriot, soldier, 
and statesman. Gen. Jackson, to say, that he never entertained 
towards Mr. Webster any of that vehemence of personal bitter- 
ness which he sometimes e.xhibited towards his opponents. He 
was of too magnanimous character to hate a magnanimous foe. 
Mr. Webster never flattered, deceived, or abused him ; never 
opposed his measures, but in an honorable manner, and with 
respectful language. 

On the 29th day of Decemt)er, 1829, Mr. Foote of Connecticut 
offered his resolution in the Senate of the United States. 



INTUODirOTIOX. 7 

Some skirmisliiiii^ imniedialcly occurred belween IJeiiton, 
NoMe, Woodbury, Holmes, aud Foote; but no one imagined it 
was soon to be followed by a regular engagement. A motion 
being made and carried to postpone tlic consideration of the 
resolution till tlie next Monday, the excitement for the time sub- 
sided. AVhen it next came up for consideration, on IMonday, tbe 
18th, Mr. Benton took tbe floor and made a speech bearing evident 
indications of study and preparation. In the course of bis 
remarks he made a violent attack upon New England, its men 
and institutions. He denounced the policy of New England 
towards tbe West as illiberal and unjust, but extolled the gener- 
osity of tbe South. "Tbe West must still look," he said, "to 
the solid phalanx of the South for succor." 

He was followed by Colonel Hayne, who, after returning his 
complimentary salute, "The Soutb would always sympathize with 
the West," poured also a broadside into New England. 

The suddenness of this attack upon New England, its warmth 
and evident malice, took Mr. Webster by surprise. He was not 
even aware of Mr. Foote's intention to introduce any such resolu- 
tion; but yet he could see no harm in its terms or purpose, nor 
impropriety in its introduction. 

As soon as Colonel Hayne concluded his speech, Mr. Webster 
took the floor in reply. It was late, however, in the day, and he 
gave way on a motion from Mr. Benton to adjourn. Tbe next 
day Mr. Webster replied to the speech of Colonel Hayne. The 
growing interest of the controversy attracted a more than usual 
crowd to the Senate. It appeared evident to every one a drama 
of some importance was going on. 

On Tuesday, January 21st, the day after Mr. Webster's 
speech, the Senate resumed again the consideration of Mr. 
Foote's resolution. 

Before the debate recommenced, Mr. Chambers of Maryland 
rose and expressed a hope that tbe Senate would consent to postpone 
further consideration of tbe resolution till the Monday following, 
as Mr. Webster, who had taken part in it and wi.shed to be present 
at its continued discussion, had unavoidable engagements else- 
where. 

There was a case of some importance on argument before the 
Supreme Couit in which ]Mr. Webster was retained as counsel. 
Compelled to watch its progress, for he knew not at what moment 



8 INTRODUCTION. 

he might be called upon to address the Bench, he had not been 
able to command more than an occasional presence in the Senate. 
He was not present when the resolution was introduced, nor 
more than a fractional portion of the time while Mr. Benton 
spoke. 

The request was denied him. Colonel Hayne rose in evident 
agitation, and insisted that the debate should go on without post- 
l)onement. He said, with some superciliousness of manner and 
with an angry intonation of voice, that he saw the gentleman from 
^Massachusetts in his seat, and presumed, if he really desired it, 
he could make an arrangement which would enable him to be 
present at the discussion that day. He would not consent that the 
subject should be postponed, until he had had an opportunity of 
replaying to some of the observations which had fallen from the 
gentleman the day before. Putting his hand to his heart, he 
said "he bad something there wbich he wished to get rid of . 
The gentleman had discharged his fire in the face of the Senate, 
and be demanded an opportunity of returning the shot." 

"Then it was," to use the words of a distinguished member of 
Congress from a Southern State, who was present on the occasion, 
" that Mr. Webster's person seemed to become taller and bigger. 
His chest expanded and his eyeballs dilated. Folding his arms 
in a composed, firm, and most expressive manner, he exclaimed: 
' Let the discussion proceed. I am ready. I am ready noic to 
receive the gentleman's fire.' " 

Mr. Benton, who had gained the floor the day previous on the 
conclusion of Mr. Webster's remarks, then rose and addressed 
the Senate for an hour. 

The warm blood of Colonel Hayne could not brook the post- 
ponement of vengeance. He besought bis friend from Missouri 
to yield tbe floor while be replied to the Senator from Massachu- 
setts. Mr. Benton gave a cheerful assent. 

Colonel Hayne then rose and entered upon his speech. His 
exordium was respectable in point of ability, and gave assurance 
of a well prepared speech. Every one must judge of it for him- 
self. Tbe high (istimate that had previously been formed of his 
talents and character disposed tbe Senate and audience to listen 
attentively; and there was much in the earlier part of the speech 
particularly to confirm the common opinion of his abilities and to 
command attention. 



INTRODUCTIOX. 

As he proceeded, his tone and hiiiij^uage l)ecame more velie- 
ment, his alhisions more personal. There was an an^^ry intleetion 
in his voice, indicative of h^ss of temper. His bearin<; betrayed a 
good (i(!al of self-confidence, at times almost arrogance. He 
seemed certain of victory, and only doubtful how much of his 
strength he should put forth. 

Sympathizing and exulting friends sui rounded him, from 
whose countenances he read the apparent success of his j)hilipi)ic. 
They urged him on with looks and encouraging words. The eye 
of the Vice-President, which alone of his features ever indicated 
an emotion, shone approvingly. Nor did he confine his assistance 
to a glance of approbation. Constantly during the progress of the 
discussion ho sent notes, suggestive, illustrative, and advisatory, to 
the orator, by one of the pages of the Senate. 

Colonel Hayne spoke this day, Thursday, January 21st, a little 
more than an hour. The Senate then adjourned over- till Monday 
following. 

The town was full of excitement. The severe nature of Colonel 
HajTie's attack, the ability with which it was conducted, bis great 
reputation, the eminence of the combatants, and the doubtful 
issue of the contest afforded ample scope for various discussion. 
The friends of Colonel Hayne were much elated at what they 
considered his brilliant clehut, and confidently predicted his ulti- 
mate triumph. Mr. Webster's friends doubted and hoped. 

It was not alone the combined strength of the administration ' 
party in the Senate Mr. Webster had to fear. He could not but 
be in doubt respecting his political allies. To make the argument 
which should satisfy all without offending either of these classes 
seemed a task difficult to be accomplished. 

Fortunately for the country and his own fame, his doubts on 
the subject were removed. His warmest friends urged with 
great eagerness upon him an unequivocal, unreserved declaration 
of his views. None were more trusted, nor esteemed by him 
than Samuel Bell, then a Senator from New Hampshire. 

On the morning of the speech, after he had gone to the Capitol, 
he called Mr. Bell into the robing-room of the Senate, and told 
him his difficulty. " You know, Mr. Bell," said he, " my con- 
stitutional opinions. There are among my friends in the Senate 
some who may not concur in them. What is expedient to be done ?" 
Mr. Bell, with great emphasisof manner, advised him to speak 



IQ INTRODUCTION 

out, "boldly and fully, his thoughts upon the subject. "It is a 
critical moment," said he, " and it is time— it is high time the 
people of this country should know what this Constitution is." 
"Then," replied Mr. Webster, "by the blessing of Heaven, they 
shall learn, this day, before the sun goes down, what I understand 

it to be." 

It was on Tuesday, January the 26th, 1830, a day to be here- 
after forever memorable in Senatorial annals, that the Senate 
resumed the consideration of Foote's Resolution. There never 
was before in the city an occasion of so much excitement. To 
witness this great intellectual contest multitudes of strangers had 
for two or three days previous been rushing into the city, and the 
hotels overflowed. As early as nine o'clock of this morning 
crowds poured into the Capitol in hot haste; at twelve o'clock— 
the hour of meeting— the Senate Chamber, its galleries, floor, and 
even lobbies was filled to its utmost capacity. The very stairways 
were dark with men, who hung on to one another, like bees in a 

swarm. 

The House of Representatives was early deserted. An adjourn- 
ment would have hardly made it emptier. The Speaker, it is 
true, retained his chair, but no business of moment was or could 
be attended to. Members all rushed in to hear Mr. Webster, and 
no call of the House or other Parliamentary proceedings could 
compel tbem back. The floor of the Senate was so densely 
crowded, that persons once in could not get out, nor change their 
position; in the rear of the Vice-Presidential chair the crowd was 
particularly intense. 

Mr. Webster perceived, and felt equal to, the destinies of the 
moment. The very greatness of the hazard exhilarated him. 
His spirits rose with the occasion. He awaited the time of onset 
with a stern and impatient joy. 

A confidence in his own resources, springing from no vain 
estimate of his power, but the legitimate offspring of previous 
severe mental discipline, sustained and excited him. He had 
gauged his opponents, his subject, and himself. 

He was too, at this period, in the very prime of manhood. He 
had reached middle age— an era in the life of man when the 
faculties, physical or intellectual, may be supposed to attain their 
fullest organization and most perfect development. Whatever 



INTKOnUCTION. 11 

tlicrc was in liiin of iiitdU'c-tual cnerijy and vitality, the occasion. 
Lis full life and high ambition, niiglit well brintr forth. 

He never rose on an ortiinary o(;easiou to address an ordinary 
audience more self-possessed. There was no tremulousness in his 
voice, or manner: nothing hurried, nothing simulated. The calm- 
ness of superior strength was visible everywhere — in countenance, 
voice, and bearing. A deep-seated conviction of the extraordinary 
character of the emergency, and of his ability to control it, seemed 
to possess him wholly. If an observer, more than ordinarily 
keen-sighted, detected at times something like exultation in his 
eye, he presumed that it sprang from the excitement of the 
moment and the anticipation of victory. 

The anxiety to hear the speech was so intense, irrepressible and 
\miversal, that no sooner had the Vice President assumed the 
chair than a motion was made and unanimously carried, to postpone 
the ordinary preliminaries of Senatorial action, and to take up 
immediately the consideration of the resolution. 

No one who was not present can understand the excitement of 
the scene; no one, who was, can give an adequate description of 
it. No word-painting can convey the deep, intense enthusiasm, 
the reverential attention, of that vast assembly; nor limner trans- 
fer to canvas their earnest, eager, awe-struck countenances. 
Though language were as subtile and flexible as thought, it still 
would be impossible to represent the full idea of the scene. There 
is something intangible in an emotion which cannot be trans- 
ferred. The nicer shades of feeling elude pursuit. Every 
description, therefore, of the occasion seems to the narrator him- 
self most tame, spiritless, unjust. 

Much of the instantaneous effect of the speech arose, of course, 
from the orator's delivery— the tones of his voice, his countenance 
and manner. 

The variety of incident during the speech, and the rapid 
fluctuation of passions, kept the audience in continual expectation 
and ceaseless agitation. There was no chord of the heart the 
orator did not strike, as with a master-hand. The speech was a 
complete drama of comic and pathetic scenes, one varied excite- 
ment — laughter and tears gaining alternate victory. 

A great portion of the speech is strictly argumentative— an 
exposition of constitutional law. But grave as such portion 
necessarily is, severely logical, abounding in no fancy or episode, 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

it engrossed throughout the undivided attention of every intelligent 
hearer. Abstractions, under the glowing genius of the orator, 
acquired a beauty, a vitality, a power to thrill the blood and 
enkindle the affections, awaking into earnest activity many a 
dormant faculty. His ponderous syllables had an energy, a 
vehemence of meaning in them, that fascinated while they 

startled. 

The swell and roll of his voice struck upon the ears of the 
spell-bound audience in deep and melodious cadence, as waves 
upon the '" far-resounding" sea. The Miltonic grandeur of his 
words was the fit expression of his thought, and raised his 
hearers up to his theme. 

The speech was over, but the tones of the orator still lingered 
upon the ear, and the audience, unconscious of the close, re- 
tained their position. The agitated countenance, the heaving 
breast, the suffused eye, attested the continued influence of the 
spell upon them. Hands that in the excitement of the moment 
had sought each other, still remained closed in an unconscious 
grasp. Eye still turned to eye, to receive and repay mutual 
sympathy; and everywhere around seemed forgetfulness of all but 
the orator's presence and words. 

The New England men walked down Pennsylvania Avenue 
that day, after the speech, with a firmer step and bolder air— 
"pride in their port, defiance in their eye." You would have 
sworn they had grown some inches taller in a few hours' time. 
They devoured the way in their stride. They looked every one 
in the face they met, fearing no contradiction. They swarmed in 
the streets, having become miraculously multitudinous. They 
clustered in parties, and fought the scene over one hundred times 
that night. Their elation was the greater by reaction. It knew 
no limits or choice of expression. Not one of them but felt he 
had gained a personal victory; not one who was not ready to 
exclaim, with gushing eyes, in the fullness of gratitude, " Thank 
God I too am a Yankee!" 

C. W. March— Webster and his Contemporaries. 



The fort-goiiig introduction condensed from Mr. March's book will ])iove 
interesting as giving an eye-witness's account of incidents in the great 
debat<i 



■ 7 



\^ ^ ffi^^ ^ ■ 



/ 



,{.yV*-^rfX^ /* 



Reply to IIayne. 

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON FOOTERS RESO- 
LUTION, ON THE 26th of JANUARY, 18:30. 

^[r. President : — When the mariner lias been tossed for 
many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he natu- 
rally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest 
glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far 
the elements have driven him from his true course. Let us 
imitate this prudence, and, before we float farther on the 
waves of this debate, refer to the point from which w^e de- 
parted, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we 
now are. I ask for the reading of the resolution. 

The secretary read the resolution, as follows : 

'''"Resolved., That the committee on public lands be instructed 
to inquire and report the quantity ot public lands remaining 
unsold within each State and Territory, and whether it be ex- 
pedient to limit for a certain period the sales of the public 
lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for 
sale, and are now subject to entry at the minimum price. And, 
also, whether the office of surveyor-general, and some of the 
land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to the 
public interest ; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures 
to hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of 
the public lands." 

We have thus heard, sir, what the resolution is which is 
actually before us for consideration ; and it will readily occur 
to every one, that it is almost the only subject about which 
something has not been said in the speech, running through 
two days, by which the senate has been now entertained by 
the gentleman from South Carolina. Every topic in the Wiae 
range of our public affairs, whether past or present — every- 
thing, general or local, whether belonging to national politics 

13 



14 SPEECH I^ REPLY TO HAYNE. 

or party politics— seems to have attracted more or less of the 
honorable member's attention, save only the resolution before 
the senate. He has spoken of everything but the public lands; 
they have escaped his notice. To that subject, in all his ex- 
cursions, he has not paid even the cold respect of a passing 

glance. 

When this debate, sir, was to be resumed, on Thursday 
morning, it so happened that it would have been convenient 
for me to be elsewhere. The honorable member, however, did 
not incline to put off the discussion to another day. He had 
a shot, he said, to return, and he wished to discharge it. 
That shot, sir, which it was kind thus to inform us was com- 
ing, that we might stand out of the way, or prepare ourselves 
to fall before it and die with decency, has now been received. 
Under all advantages, and with expectation awakened by the 
tone which preceded it, it has been discharged, and has spent 
its force. It may become me to say no more of its effect, than 
that, if nobody is found, after all, either killed or wounded by 
it, it is not the first time, in the history of human affairs, that 
the vigor and success of the war have not quite come up to 
the lofty and sounding phrase of the manifesto." 

The gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, 

told the senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, 

that there was something rankling here^ which he wished to 

relieve. 

[Mr. Hayne rose and disclaimed having used the word rank- 
ling.] 

It would not, sir, be safe for the honorable member to 

appeal to those around him, upon the question whether he 

did in fact make use of that word. But he may have been 

unconscious of it. At any rate, it is enough that he disclaims 

it. But still, with or without the use of that particular word, 

he had yet something here, he said, of which he wished to rid 

himself by an immediate reply. In this respect, sir, I have a 

great advantage over the honoruble gentleman. There is 

nothing liere, sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness ; 

iK'ilhcr fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometimes more 

troublesome than either, the consciousness of having been in 



SPEECH IX RErLY TO IIAYXK. 15 

the wrong. There is iiotliing, eitlier originating here, or now- 
received Jiere by the gentleman's shot. Nothing original ; for 
I had not the slightest feeling of disrespect or unkindness 
toward the honorable member. Some passages, it is true, had 
occurred since our ^acquaintance in this body, which I could 
have wished might liave been otherwise ; but 1 liad used i)hil- 
osophy and forgotten them. When the honorable member 
rose in his first speech, I paid him the resi)ect of attentive lis- 
tening ; and when he sat down, though surprised, and I must 
say even astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was far- 
ther from my intention than to commence any personal war- 
fare. And through the whole of the few remarks I made in 
answer, I avoided, studiously and carefully, everything which 
I thought possible to be construed into disrespect. And, sir, 
while there is thus nothing originating here which I wished at 
any time, or now wish, to discharge, I must repeat also, that 
nothing has been received here which rankles, or in any way 
gives me annoyance, I will not accuse the honorable member 
of violating the rules of civilized war ; I will not say that he 
poisoned his arrows. But whether his shafts were, or were 
not, dipped in that which would have- caused rankling if they 
had reached, there was not as it happened, quite strength 
enough in the bow to bring them to their mark. If he wishes 
now to gather up those shafts, he must look for them else- 
where ; they will not be found fixed and quivering in the object 
at which they were aimed. 

The honorable member complained that I had slept on his 
speech. I must have slept on it, or not slept at all. The mo- 
ment the honorable member sat down, his friend from Missouri 
rose, and, with much honeyed commendation of the speech, 
suggested that the impressions which it had produced were too 
charming and delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments 
or other sounds, and |)roposed that the senate should adjourn. 
Would it have been quite amiable in me, sir, to interrupt this 
excellent good feeling? Must I not have been absolutely ma- 
licious, if I could have thrust myself forward, to destroy sen- 
sations thus pleasing? Was it not much better and kinder, 
])oth to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others also the 



16 SPEECH IN EEPLT TO HATNE. 

pleasure of sleeping upon them ? But if it be meant, by 
sleeping upon his speech, that I took time to prepare a reply 
to it, it is quite a mistake. Owing to other engagements, I 
could not employ even the interval between the adjournment 
of the senate and its meeting the next morning, in attention 
to the subject of this debate. Nevertheless, sir, the mere 
matter of fact is undoubtedly true. I did sleep on the gentle- 
man's speech, and slept soundly. And I slept equally well on 
his speech of yesterday, to which I am now replying. It is 
quite possible that in this respect, also, I possess some advan- 
tage over the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, to a 
cooler temperament on my part ; for, in truth, I slej^t upon 
his speeches remarkably well. 

But the gentleman inquires why 7ie was made the object of 
such a reply. Why was he singled out ? If an attack has 
been made on the East, he, he assures us, did not begin it ; it 
was made by the gentleman from Missouri. Sir, I answered 
the gentleman's speech because I happened to hear it ; and 
because, also, I chose to give an answer to that speech, which, 
if unanswered, I thought most likely to produce injurious 
impressions. I did not stop to inquire who was the original 
drawer of the bill. I found a responsible endorser before me, 
and it was my purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to 
his just responsibility, without delay. But, sir, this interrog- 
atory of the honorable member was only introductory to 
another. He proceeded to ask me whether I had turned upon 
him, in this debate, from the consciousness that I should find 
an overmatch, if I ventured on a contest with his friend from 
Missouri. If, sir, the honorable member, ex gratia modestice, 
had chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay him a com- 
pliment, without intentional disparagement to others, it would 
have been quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, 
and not at all ungrateful to my own feelings. I am not one 
of those, sir, who esteem any tribute of regard, whether light 
and occasional, or more serious and deliberate, which may be 
bestowed on others, as so much unjustly withholden from 
themselves. Bnt tlie tone and manner of the gentleman's 
question forbid me thus to interpret it. I am not at liberty 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIAYNE. 17 

to consider it as iiotliing more than u civility to liis friend. It 
had an air of taunt and disparagement, something of the 
loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not allow me to 
pass it over without notice. It was put as a question forme to 
answer, and so put as if it were difficult for me to answer, 
whether I deemed the member from Missouri an overmatch 
for myself, in debate here. It seems to me, sir, that this is 
extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone, for the 
discussions of this body. 

Matches and overmatches! Those terms are more applica- 
ble elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than 
this. Sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we 
are. This is a senate, a senate of ecjuals, of men of individual 
honor and personal character, and of absolute independence. 
We know no masters, we acknowledge no dictators. This is a 
hall for mutual consultation and discussion ; not an arena for 
the exhibition of champions. I offer myself, sir, as a match for 
no man ; I throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet. 
But then, sir, since the honorable member has put the question 
in a manner that calls for an answer, I will give him an answer; 
and I tell him, that, holding myself to be the humblest of the 
members here, I yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from 
Missouri, either alone or when aided by the arm of Ids friend 
from South Carolina, that need deter even me from espousing 
whatever opinions I may choose to espouse, from debating 
whenever I may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever I 
may see fit to say, on the floor of the senate. Sir, when ut- 
tered as matter of commendation or compliment, I should dis- 
sent from nothing which the honorable member might say of 
his friend. Still less do I put forth any pretensions of my own. 
But when put to me as a matter of taunt, I throw it back, and 
say to the gentleman, that he could possibly say nothing less 
likely than such a comparison to wound my pride of personal 
character. The anger of its tone rescued the remark from in- 
tentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its 
general acceptation. But, sir, if it be imagined that by this 
mutual quotation and commendation; if it be supposed that, by 
casting the characters of the drama, assigning to each his part, 



18 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

to one the attack, to another the cry of onset; or if it be thought 
that, by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated victory, any 
laurels are to be won here; if it be imagiiied, especially, that 
any, or all of these things will shake any purpose of mine, I 
can tell the honorable member, once for all, that he is greatly 
mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of wiiose temper and 
character he has yet much to learn. Sir, I shall not allow my- 
self, on this occasion, I hope on no occasion, to be betrayed into 
any loss of temper; but if provoked, as I trust I never shall be, 
into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may 
perhaps find that, in that contest, there will be blows to take as 
well as blows to give; that others can state comparisons as 
significant, at least, as his own, and that his impunity may pos- 
sibly demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he 
may possess. I commend him to a prudent husbandry of his 
resources. 

But, sir, the coalition ! The coalition ! Ay, "the murdered 
' coalition I" The gentleman asks, if I were led or frighted into 
this debate by the specter of the coalition. " Was it the 
ghost of the murdered coalition," he exclaims, " which haunted 
the member from Massachusetts; and which, like the ghost of 
Banquo, would never down?" "The murdered coalition!" 
Sir, this charge of a coalition, in reference to the late adminis- 
tration, is not original with the honorable member. It did not 
spring up in the senate. Whether as a fact, as an argument, 
or as an embellishment, it is all borrowed. He adopts it, in- 
deed, from a very low origin, and a still lower present condi- 
tion. It is one of the thousand calumnies with wiiich the press 
teemed, daring an excited political canvass. It was a charge, 
of which there was not only no proof or probability, but which 
was in itself wholly impossible to be true. No man of common 
information ever believed a syllable of it. Yet it was of that 
class of falsehoods, which, by continued repetition, through all 
the organs of detraction and abuse, are capable of misleading 
those who are already far misled, and of further fanning pas- 
sion already kindling into flame. Doubtless it served in its day, 
and in greater or less degree, the end designed by it. Having 
done that, it has sunk into the general mass of stale and loathe(i 



SPEECH IX REPLY TO IIAYNE. 10 

calumnies, tl is the very cast-off slougli of a polluted and 
shameless press. Incapable of further mischief, it lies in the 
sewer, lifeless and despised. It is not now, sir, in the power 
of the honorable member to f^ive it dignity and decency, by at- 
tempting to elevate it, and to introduce it into the senate. He 
cannot change it from what it is, an object of general disgust 
and scorn. On the contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch 
it, is more likely to drag him down, down, to the place where 
it lies itself. 

But, sir, the honorable member was not, for other reasons, 
entirely happy in his allusion to the story of Banquo's murder 
and Banquo's ghost. It was not, I think, the friends, but the 
enemies of the murdered Banquo, at whose bidding his spirit 
would not down. The honorable gentleman is fresh in his 
reading of the English classics, and can put me right if I am 
wrong; but, according to my poor recollection, it was at those 
who had begun with caresses and ended wiJth foul and treach- 
erous murder that the gory locks were shaken. The ghost of 
Banquo, like that of Hamlet, was an honest ghost. It disturbed 
no innocent man. It knew where its appearance would strike 
terror, and who would cry out, A ghost ! It made itself visible 
in the right quarter, and compelled the guilty and the con- 
science-smitten, and none others, to start, with, 

" Pr'y thee, see there ! behold !— look I lo ! 
If I stand here, I saw him !" 

Their eyeballs were seared (was it not so, sir ?) who had thought 
to shield themselves by concealing their own hand, and laying 
the imputation of the crime on a low and hireling agency in 
wickedness; who had vainly attempted to stifle the workings 
of their own coward consciences by ejaculating through white 
lips and chattering teeth, "Thou canst not say I did it!" I 
have misread the great poet if those who had no way partaken 
in the deed of the death, either found that they were, oy feared 
that the}) shoidd be, pushed from their stools by the ghost of 
the slain, or exclaimed to a specter created by their own fears 
and their own remorse, " Avaunt! and quit our sight! " 
There is another particular, sir, in which the honorable mem 



20 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

ber's quick perception of resemblances might, I should think, 
have seen something in the story of Banquo, making it not al- 
together a subject of the most pleasant contemplation. Those 
who murdered Banquo, what did they win by it ? Substantial 
good ? Permanent power ? Or disappointment, rather, and 
sore mortification ; dust and ashes, the common fate of vault- 
ing ambition overleaping itself? Did not even-handed justice 
ere long commend the poisoned chalice to their own lips ? 
Did they not soon find that for another they had " 'filed their 
mind ? " that their ambition, though apparently for the mo- 
ment successful, had but put a barren scepter in their grasp ? 
Ay, sir, 

" a barren scepter in their gripe 
TJience to be wrenched by an unlineal hand, 
Iko son of theirs succeeding.'''' 

Sir, I need pursue the allusion no farther. I leave the hon- 
orable gentleman to run it out at his leisure, and to derive 
from it all the gratification it is calculated to administer. If 
he finds himself pleased with the associations, and prepared to 
be quita satisfied, though the parallel should be entirely com- 
pleted, I had almost said, I am satisfied also ; but that I shall 
think of. Yes, sir, I will think of that. 

I spoke, sir, of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited 
slavery, in all future times, northwest of the Ohio, as a meas- 
ure of great wisdom and foresight, and one which had been at- 
tended with highly beneficial and permanent consequences. I 
supposed that, on this point, no two gentlemen in the senate 
could entertain different opinions. But the simple expression 
of this sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into a labored 
defense of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but also 
into a warm accusation against me, as having attacked the 
system of domestic slavery now existing in the southern states. 
For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in any- 
thing said or intimated by me. I did not utter a single word 
which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the 
slavery of the south. I said, only, that it was highly wise and 
useful, in legislating for the northwestern country while it was 
yet a wilderness, to prohibit the iutroductjou of slaves ; and 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIAYNE. 21 

added, that I presumed there was in the neigliboriii<< state of 
Kentucky, no reflecting and intelligent gentleman who would 
doubt that, if the same prohibition had been extended, at the 
same early period, over that commonwealtli, her strength and 
population would, at this day, have been far greater than they 
are. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are never- 
theless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. They 
attack nobody and menace nobody. And yet, sir, the gentle- 
man's optics have discovered, even in the mere expression of 
this sentiment, what he calls the very spirit of the Missouri 
question. He represents me as making an onset on the whole 
south, and manifesting a spirit which would interfere with, 
and disturb their domestic condition ! 

Sir, this injustice no otherwise surprises me, than as it is com- 
mitted here, and committed without the slightest pretense of 
ground for it. I say it only surprises me as being done here ; 
for I know full well, that it is, and has been the settled policy 
of some persons in the south, for years, to represent the people 
of the north as disposed to interfere with them in their ow^n 
exclusive and peculiar concerns. This is a delicate and sensi- 
tive point in southern feeling ; and of late years it has al- 
ways been touched, and generally with effect, whenever the ob- 
ject has been to unite the whole south against northern men or 
northern measures. This feeling always carefully kept alive, 
and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination 
or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. 
It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same di- 
rection. But it is without any adequate cause, and the suspi- 
cion which exists wholly groundless. There is not and never 
has been, a disposition in the north to interfere with these in- 
terests of the south. Such interference has never been sup- 
posed to be within the power of government ; nor has it been 
in any way attempted. The slavery of the south has always 
been regarded as a matter of domestic policy, left with the 
states themselves, and with which the federal government had 
nothing to do. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been, of that 
opinion. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the 
abstract, is no evil. Most assuredly I need not say I dif- 



22 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

for with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. I re- 
gard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both 
moral and political. But though it be a malady, and whether 
it be curable, and if so, by what means ; or, on the other hand, 
whether it be the vulnus inunedicabile of the social system, I 
leave it to those whose right and duty it is to inquire and to 
decide. And this I believe, sir, is, and uniformly has been, the 
sentiment of the north. 

But as to the Hartford convention, sir, allow me to say, 
that the proceedings of that body seem now to be less read and 
studied in New England than farther south. They appear to 
be looked to, not in New England, but elsewhere, for the pur- 
pose of seeing how far they may serve as a precedent. But 
they will not answer the purpose, they are quite too tame. 
The latitude in which they originated was too cold. Other 
conventions, of more recent existence, have gone a whole bar's 
length beyond it. The learned doctors of Colleton and Abbe- 
ville have pushed their commentaries on the Hartford collect 
so far, that the original text-w^riters are thrown entirely into 
the shade. I have nothing to do, sir, with the Hartford con- 
vention. Its journal, which the gentleman has quoted, I 
never read. So far as the honorable member may discover 
in its proceedings a spirit in any degree resembling that 
which was avowed and justified in those other conventions to 
which I have alluded, or so far as those proceedings can be 
shown to be disloyal to the constitution, or tending to disunion, 
so far I shall be as ready as any one to bestow" on them repre- 
hension and censure. 

Having dwelt long on this convention, and other occurrences 
of that day, in the hope, probably, (which will not be gratified,) 
that I should leave the course of this debate to follow him at 
length in those excursions, tlie honorable member returned, and 
attempted another object. He referred to a speech of mine in 
the other house, the same which I had occasion to allude to 
myself, the other day ; and has quoted a passage or two from it, 
witli a bold, though uneasy and laboring air of confidence, as 
if he had detected in me an inconsistency. Judging from the 
gentleman's manner, a stranger to the course of the debate 



SPEECH IN REPLl TO HAYNE. 23 

and to the point in discussion would have imagined, from so 
triunii)h;int a tone, that the honorable member was al)out to 
overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction. Any one who 
heard him, and who had not heard, what 1 had, in fact, i)revi- 
ously said, must liave th()u<ijht me routed and discomfited, as 
the .2:entleman had i)r()mised. Sir, a breath l)lows all this 
triuni})h away. There is not the slightest difference in the 
sentiments of my remarks on the two occasions. What I said 
here on Wednesday is in exact accordance with the opinion 
expressed by me in the other house in 1825. Though the 
gentleman had the metaphysics of Hudibras, though he were 
able 

"to sever and divide 
A hair 'twixt north and northwest side," 

he yet could not insert his metaphysical scissors between the 
fair reading of my remarks in 1825, and what I said here last 
week. There is not only no contradiction, no difference, but, 
in truth, too exact a similarity, both in thought and language, 
to be entirely in just taste. I had myself quoted the same 
speech ; had recurred to it, and spoke with it open before me ; 
and much of what I said was little more than a repetition 
from it. 

I need not repeat at large the general topics of the honora- 
ble gentleman's speech. When he said yesterday that he did 
not attack the eastern states, he certainly must have forgot- 
ten, not only particular remarks, but the whole drift and tenor 
of his speech; unless he means by not attacking, that he did 
not commence hostilities, but that another had preceded him 
in the attack. He, in the first place, disproved of the whole 
course of the government, for forty years, in regard to its dis- 
position of the public land; and then, turning northward and 
eastward, and fancying he had found a cause for alleged nar- 
rowness and niggardliness in the "accursed policy" of the 
tariff, to which he represented the peoj^le of New England as 
wedded, he went on for a full hour with remarks, the wliole 
scope of which was to exIiiVMt the results of this policy, in 
feelings and in measures unfavorable to the west. I thought 



24 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

his opinions unfounded and erroneous, as to the general 
course of the government, and ventured to reply to them. 

The gentlemen had remarked on the analogy of other cases, 
and quoted the conduct of European governments toward 
their own subjects settling on this continent, as in point, to 
show that we had been harsh and rigid in selling, when we 
should have given the public lands to settlers without price. 
I thought the honorable member had suffered his judgment to 
be betrayed by a false analogy; that he was struck with an 
appearance of resemblance where there was no real similitude. 
I think so still. The first settlers of North America w^ere en- 
terprising spirits, engaged in private adventure, or fleeing 
from tyranny at home. When arrived here, they were forgot- 
ten by the mother country, or remembered only to be op- 
pressed. Carried away again by the appearance of analogy, 
or struck with the eloquence of the passage, the honorable 
member yesterday observed, that the conduct of government 
toward the western emigrants, or my representation of it, 
brought to his mind a celebrated speech in the British parlia- 
ment. It was, sir, the speech of Colonel Barre. On the 
question of the stamp act, or tea tax, I forget which, Colonel 
Barre had heard a member on the treasury bench argue, that 
the people of the United States, being British colonists, planted 
by the maternal care, nourished by the indulgence, and pro- 
tected by the arms of England, would not grudge their mite 
to relieve the mother country from the heavy burden under 
which she groaned. The language of Colonel Barre, in reply 
to this, was : "They planted by your care? Your oppression 
planted them in America, They fled from your tyranny, and 
grew by your neglect of them. So soon as you began to care 
for them, you showed your care by sending persons to spy out 
their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon them, 
and cat out their substance." 

And how does the honorable gentleman mean to maintain, 
that language like this is applicable to the conduct of the gov- 
ernment of the United States toward the western emigrants, 
or to any representation given by me of that conduct ? Were 
the settlers in the west driven thither by our oppression ? 



SPEECH IN KKrLY TO IIAYXK. 25 

Have they flourislit'd only by our neglect of them? lias the 
government done dothing but to prey upon them, and eat out 
their substance ? Sir, this ferved eloquence of the British 
speaker, just when and where it was uttered, and fit to re- 
main an exercise for the schools, is not a little out of place, 
when it is brought thence to be applied here, to the conduct of 
our own country toward her own citizens. From America to 
England, it may be true ; from Americans to their own govern- 
ment, it would be strange language. Let us leave it to be re- 
cited and declaimed by our boys against a foreign nation ; not 
introduce it here, to recite and declaim ourselves against our 
own. 

We approach, at length, sir, to a more important part of 
the honorable gentleman's observations. Since it does not ac- 
cord with my views of justice and policy to give away the 
public lands altogether, as mere matter of gratuity, I am 
asked by the honorable gentleman on what ground it is that I 
consent to vote them away in particular instances. How, he 
inquires, do I reconcile with these professed sentiments, my 
support of measures appropriating portions of the lands to par- 
ticular roads, particular canals, particular rivers, and particu- 
lar institutions of education in the west ? This leads, sir, to 
the real and wide difference in political opinion between the 
honorable gentleman and myself. On my part, I look upon 
all these objects as connected with the common good, fairly 
embraced in its object and its terms ; he, on the contrary, 
deems them all, if good at all, only local good. This is our 
difference. The interrogatory which he proceeded to put, 
at once explains this difference. " What interest," asks he, 
" has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio?" Sir, this very 
question is full of significance. It develops the gentleman's 
whole political system ; and its answer expounds mine. Here 
we differ. I look upon a road over the Alleghanies. a canal 
round the falls of the Ohio, or a canal or railway from the 
Atlantic to the western waters, as being an object large and 
extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the common bene- 
fit. The gentleman thinks otherwise, and this is the key to 
his construction of the powers of the government. He may 



26 SPEECH IN EEPLY TO HAYNE. 

well ask what interest lias South Carolina in a canal in Ohio. 
On his system, it is true, she has no interest. On that system, 
Ohio and Carolina are different governments, and different 
countries ; connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill- 
defined bond of union, but in all main respects separate and 
diverse. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a. 
canal in Oliio than in Mexico. The gentleman, therefore, 
only follows out his own principles; he does no more than ar- 
rive at the natural conclusions of his own doctrines ; he only V 
announces the true results of that creed which he has adopted f 
himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus \ 
declares that South Carolina has no interest in a public work/ 

in Ohio. 

Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not rea- 
son thus. Our notion of things is entirely different. We look 
upon the states, not as separated, but as united. We love to 
dwell on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it 
has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has 
so greatly contributed to acquire. In our contemplation, Car- 
olina and Ohio are parts of the same country ; states, united 
under the same general government, having interests, com- 
mon, associated, intermingled. In whatever is within the 
proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, 
we look upon the states as one. We do not impose geograph- 
ical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow 
rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find bounda- 
ries, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. 
We who come here, as agents and representatives of these 
narrow-minded and selfish men of New England, consider 
ourselves as bound to regard with an equal eye the good of 
the whole, in whatever is within our power of legislation. 
Sir, if a railroad or canal, beginning in South Carolina and 
ending- in South Carolina, appeared to me to be of national 
importance and national magnitude, believing as I do, that 
the power of government extends to the encouragement of 
works of that description, if I were to stand up here and ask, 
What interest has Massachusetts in a railroad in South Caro- 
lina ? I should not be willing to face my constituents. These 



SPKECII IN KKT'I-Y TO IIAYNK. 27 

same naiTow-miiidcd men would tell nie, that they liad sent 
me to aet for the whole country, and that one wlio jxnssessed 
too little comi)rehension, either of intellect or feeling, onc 
wlio was not large enough both in mind and in heart, to em- 
brace the whole, was not tit to be entrusted with the interest 
of any part. 

Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the powers of the government 
by unjustifiable construction, nor to exercise any not within 
a fair interpretation. But when it is believed that a power 
does exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the 
general benefit of the whole. So far as respects the exercise 
of such a power, the states are one. It was the very object of 
the constitution to create unity of interests to the extent of 
the powers of the general government. In war and peace we 
are one ; in commerce, one ; because the authority of the gen- 
eral government reaches to war and peace, and to the regula- 
tion of commerce. I have never seen any more difficulty in 
erecting lighthouses on the lakes, than on the ocean; in im- 
proving the harbors of inland seas, than if they were within 
the ebb and tlow of the tide ; or in removing obstructions in 
the vast streams of the west, more than in any work to facili- 
tate commerce on the Atlantic coast. If there be any power 
for one, there is power also for the other ; and they are all 
and equally for the common good of the country. 

Sir, to these questions retort would be justified ; and it is 
both cogent and at hand. Nevertheless, I will answer the 
inquiry, not by retort, but by facts. I will tell the gentleman 
when, and how, and why New England has supported meas- 
ures favorable to the west. I have already referred to the 
early history of the government, to the first acquisition of the 
lands, to the original laws for disposing of them, and for gov- 
erning the territories where they lie ; and have shown the 
influence of New England men and New England principles 
in all these leading measures. I should not be pardoned were 
I to go over that ground again. Coming to more recent times, 
and to measures of a less general character, I have endeavored 
to prove that everything of this kind, designed for western 
improvement, has depended on the votes of New England ; all 



28 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

this is true beyond the power of contradiction. And now, sir, 
there are two measures to which I will refer, not so ancient 
as to belong to the early history of the public lands, and not 
so recent as to be on this side of the period when the gentleman 
charitably imagines a new direction may have been given to 
New England feeling and New England votes. These meas- 
ures, and the New England votes in support of them, may be 
taken as samples and specimens of all the rest. 

In 1820 (observe, Mr. President, in 1820), the people of the 
west besought congress for a reduction in the price of lands. 
In favor of that reduction, New England, with a delegation of 
forty members in the other house, gave thirty-three votes, and 
one only against it. The four southern states, with over fifty 
members, gave thirty-two votes for it, and seven against it. 
Again, in 1821 (observe again, sir, the time), the law passed 
for the relief of the purchasers of the public lands. This was 
a measure of vital importance to the west, and more especially 
to the southwest. It authorized the relinquishment of con- 
tracts for lands which had been entered into at high prices, 
and a reduction in other cases of not less than thirty-seven and 
a half per cent, on the purchase-money. Many millions of 
dollars, six or seven, I believe, at least probably much more, 
were relinquished by this law. On this bill. New England, 
with her forty members, gave more affirmative votes than the 
four southern states, with their fifty-two or three members. 
These two are far the most important general measures re- 
specting the public lands which have been adoptod within the 
last twenty years. They took place in 1820 and 1821. That 
is the time when. 

As to manner how, the gentleman already sees that it was 
by voting in solid column for the required relief ; and, lastly, 
as to the cause why, I tell the gentleman it was because the 
members from New England thought the measures just and 
salutary ; because they entertained toward the west neither 
envy, hatred, nor malice ; because they deemed it becoming 
them, as just and enlightened men, to meet the exigency which 
had arisen in the west with the appropriate measure of relief ; 
because they felt it due to their own characters, and the char- 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIAYNE. 23 

acters of their New England predecessors in this government, 
to act toward the new states in the spirit of a liberal, patron- 
izing, magnanimous policy. So much, sir, for the cause why^ 
and I hoi)e that by this time, sir, the honorable gentleman is 
satisfied ; if not, I do not know when, or how, or why he ever 
will be. 

This government, Mr. President, from its origin to the peace 
of 1815, had been too much engrossed with various other im- 
portant concerns to be able to turn its thoughts inward, and 
look to the development of its vast internal resources. In the 
early part of President Washington's adminstration, it was 
fully occupied with completing its own organization, providing 
for the public debt, defending the frontiers, and maintaining 
domestic peace. Before the termination of that administration, 
the fires of the French revolution blazed forth, as from a new- 
opened volcano, and the whole breadth of the ocean did not 
secure us from its effects. The smoke and the cinders reached 
us, though not the burning lava. Difficult and agitating ques- 
tions, embarrassing to government and dividing public opin- 
ion, sprung out of the new state of our foreign relations, and 
were succeeded by others, and yet again by others, equally 
embarrassing and equally exciting division and discord, 
through the long series of twenty years, till they finally issued 
in the war with England. Down to the close of that war, no 
distinct, marked, and deliberate attention had been given, or 
could have been given, to the internal condition of the coun- 
try, its capacities of improvement, or the constitutional power 
of the government in regard to objects connected with such 
improvement. 

The peace, Mr. President, brought about an entirely new 
and a most interesting state of things ; it opened to us other 
prospects and suggested other duties. AVe ourselves were 
changed, and the whole world was changed. The pacification 
of Europe, after June, 1815, assumed a firm and permanent 
aspect. The nations evidently manifested that they were dis- 
posed for peace. Some agitation of the waves might be ex- 
pected, even after the storm had subsided, but the tendency 
was, strongly and rapidly, toward settled repose. 



30 SPEECH IN REPLT TO HAYNE. 

It SO happened, sir, that I was at that time a member of 
congress, and, like others, naturally turned my attention to 
the contemplation of the newly altered condition of the coun- 
try and of the world. It appeared plainly enough to me, as 
well as to wiser and more experienced men, that the policy of 
the government would naturally take a start in a new direc- 
tion ; because new directions would necessarily be given to 
the pursuits and occupations of the people. We had pushed 
our commerce far and fast, nnder the advantage of a neutral 
flag. But there were now no longer flags, either neutral or 
belligerent. The harvest of neutrality had been great, but 
we had gathered it all. With the peace of Europe, it was 
obvious there would spring up in her circle of nations a re- 
vived and invigorating spirit of trade, and a new activity in 
all the business and objects of civilized life. Hereafter, our 
commercial gains were to be earned only by success in a close 
and intense competition. Other nations would produce for 
themselves, and carry for themselves, and manufacture for 
themselves, to the full extent of their abilities. The crops of 
our plains \\ould no longer sustain European armies, nor our 
ships longer supply those whom war had rendered unable to 
supply themselves. It was obvious that, under these circum- 
stances, the country would begin to survey itself, and to esti- 
mate its own capacity of improvement. 

And this improvement — how was it to be accomplished, and 
who was to accomplish it ? We were ten or twelve millions 
of people, spread over aluiost half a world. We were more 
than twenty states, some stretching along the same seaboard 
some along the same line of inland frontier, and others on op- 
posite banks of the same vast rivers. Two considei^ations at 
cnce presented themselves, in looking at this state of things, 
■with great force. One was, that that great branch of improve- 
ment which consisted in furnishing new facilities of intercourse 
necessarily ran into different states in every leading instance, 
and would benefit the citizens of all such states. No one state, 
therefore, in such cases, would assume the whole expense, nor 
•was tiie cooperation of several states to be expected. Take the 
instance ctf the Delaware breakwater. It will cost several mill- 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIAYNE. 31 

ions of money. Would Pennsylvania alqnc ever have con- 
structed it ? Certainly never, while this Union lasts, because 
it is not for her sole benefit. "Would Pennsylvania, New Jer- 
sey, and Delaware have united to accomplish it at their joint 
expense? Certainly not, for the same reason. It could not 
be done, therefore, but l)y the general government. The same 
may be said of the large inl.'ind undertakings, except that, in 
them, government, instead of beai-ing the whole expense, coop- 
erates with others who bear a part. The other consideration 
is, that the United States have the means. They enjoy the 
revenues derived from commerce, and the states have no abun- 
dant and easy sources of public income. The custom-houses 
fill the general treasury, while the states have scanty resources, 
except by resort to heavy direct taxes. 

Under this view of things, I thought it necessary to settle, at 
least for mj'self, some definite notions with respect to the pow- 
ei's of the government with regard to internal affairs. It may 
not savor too much of self-commendation to remark, that, with 
this object, I considered the constitution, its judicial construc- 
tion, its contemporaneous exposition, and the whole history of 
the legislation of congress under it ; and I arrived at the 
conclusion, that government had power to accomplish sundry 
objects or aid in their accomplishment, which are now com- 
monly spoken of as Internal Improvements. That con- 
clusion, sir, may have been right, or it may have been wrong. 
I am not about to argue the grounds of it at large. I say 
only, that it was adopted and acted on even so early as in 
1816. Yes, Mr. President, I made up my opinion, and deter- 
mined on my intended course of political conduct, on these 
subjects, in the fourteenth congress, in 1816. And now, Mr. 
President, I have further to say, that I made up these opin- 
ions, and entered on this course of political conduct, Teucro 
diice* Yes, sir, I pursued in all this a South Carolina track 
on the doctrines of internal improvement. South Carolina, 
as she was then represented in the other house, set forth in 
1816 under a fresh and leading breeze, and I was among the 

*At the time when this speech was made, Mr, Calhoun was vice-president, 
and president of the senate. 



32 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

followers. But if my leader sees new lights and turns a sharp 
corner, unless I see new lights also, I keep straight on in the 
same path. I repeat, that leading gentlemen from South 
Carolina were first and foremost in behalf of the doctrines of 
internal improvements, when those doctrines came first to be 
considered and acted upon in congress. The debate on the 
bank question, on the tariff of 1816, and on the direct tax, 
will show who was who, and W'hat was w^hat, at that time. 

The tariff of 1816 (one of the plain cases of oppression and 
usurpation, from which, if the government does not recede, 
individual states may justly secede from the government) is, 
sir, in truth, a South Carolina tariff, supported by South Car- 
olina votes. But for those votes it could not have passed in 
the form in which it did pass; whereas, if it had depended on 
Massachusetts votes, it would have been lost. Does not the 
honorable gentleman well know all this ? There are certainly 
those who do, full well, know it all. I do not say this to re- 
proach South Carolina. I only state the fact; and I think it 
will appear to be true, that among the earliest and boldest 
advocates of the tariff, as a measure of protection, and on the 
express ground of protection, were leading gentlemen of South 
Carolina in congress. I did not then, and cannot now% under- 
stand their language in any other sense. While this tariff of 
1816 was under discussion in the house of representatives, an 
honorable gentleman from Georgia, now of this house, (Mr. 
Forsythj, moved to reduce the proposed duty on cotton. He 
failed, by four votes, South Carolina giving three votes 
(enough to have turned the t^cale) against his motion. The 
act, sir, then passed, and received on its passage the support 
of a majority of the representatives of South Carolina present 
and voting. This act is the first in the order of those now 
denounced as plain usurpations. We see it daily in the list, 
by the side of those of 1824 and 1828, as a case of manifest 
oppression, justifying disunion. I put it home to the honor- 
able member from South Carolina, that his own state was not 
only " art and part" in this measure, but the causa causans. 
Without her aid, this seminal principle of mischief, this root 
of Upas, could not have been planted. I have already said, 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIAYNE. 33 

and it is true, tliat tliis act proceeded on the ground of pro- 
tection. It interfered directly with existing interests of great 
value and amount. It cut up the Calcutta cotton trade by 
the roots, but it passed, nevertheless, and it passed on the 
principle of i)rotecting manufactures, on the i)rinciple against 
free trade, on the principle opposed to that ir/tich lets us 
alone. 

Such, Mr. President, were the opinions of important and 
leading gentlemen from South Carolina, on the subject of in- 
ternal improvement, in 1816. 1 went out of congress the 
next year, and, returning again in 1S:2:3, thought I found 
South Carolina where I had left her. I really supposed that 
all things remained as they were, and that the South Carolina 
doctrine of internal improvements would be defended by the 
same eloquent voices, and the same strong arms, jis formerly. 
In the lapse of these six years, it is true, political associations 
had assumed a new aspect and new^ divisions. A party had 
arisen in the south hostile to the doctrine of internal improve- 
ments, and had vigorously attacked that doctrine. Anti- 
consolidation was the flag under which this party fought ; and 
its supporters inveighed against internal improvements, much 
after the manner in which the honorable gentleman has now 
inveighed against them, as part and parcel of the system of 
consolidation. Whether this party arose in South Carolina 
herself, or in her neighborhood, is more than I know. I think 
the latter. However that may have been, there were those 
found in South Carolina ready to make war upon it, and who 
did make intrepid war upon it. Names being regarded as 
things in such controversies, they bestowed on the anti-im- 
provement gentlemen the appellation of radicals. Yes, sir, 
the appellation of radicals, as a term of distinction applicable 
and applied to those who denied the liberal doctrines of inter- 
nal improvement, originated, according to the best of my rec- 
ollection, somewhere between North Carolina and Georgia. 
"Well, sir, these mischievous radicals were to be put down, and 
the strong arm of South Carolina was stretched out to put 
them down. About this time, sir, I returned to congress. 
The battle with the radicals had been fought, and our South 



34 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

Carolina champions of the doctrines of internal improvement 
had nobly maintained their ground, and were understood to 
have achieved a victory. TTe looked upon them as conquer- 
ors. They had driven back the enemy with discomfiture, a 
thing, by the way, sir, which is is not always perforrned when 
it is promised. 

I go to other remarks of the honorable member; and I have 
to complain of an entire misapprehension of what I said on the 
subject of the national debt, though I can hardly perceive how 
any one could misunderstand me. What I said was, not that I 
wished to put off the payment of the debt, but, on the contrary, 
that I had always voted for every measure for its reduction, as 
uniformly as the gentleman himself. He seems to claim the 
exclusive merit of a disposition to reduce the public charge. I 
do not allow it to him. As a debt, I was — I am for paying it, 
because it is a charge on onr finances, and on the industry of the 
country. But I observed that I thought I perceived a morbid 
fervor on that subject, an excessive anxiety to pay off the debt, 
not so much because it is a debt simply, as because, while it 
lasts, it furnishes one objection to disunion. It is a tie of com- 
mon interest, while it continues. I did not impute such motives 
to the honorable member himself, but that there is such a feel- 
ing in existence I have not a particle of doubt. The most I said 
was, that if one effect of the debt w-as to strengthen our Union, 
that effect itself was not regretted by me, hoW' ever much others 
might regret it. The gentleman has not seen how to reply to 
this, otherwise than by supposing me to have advanced the doc- 
trine that a national debt is a national blessing. Others, I must 
hope, will fid much lessn difficulty in understanding me. I dis- 
tinctly and pointedly cautioned the honorable member not to 
understand me as expressing an opinion favorable to the contin- 
uance of the debt. I repeated this caution, and repeated it more 
than once; but it was thrown away. 

On yet another point, I was still more unaccountably misun- 
derstood. The gentleman had harangued against " consolida- 
tion." I told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consoli- 
dation towhicli I was attached, and that was the consolidation 
of our Union; that this was precisely that consolidation to 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIAYNE. 35 

which 1 feared others were not attaelied; tliat such consoli- 
dation was the very end of tlie constitution, tlie leading; o])ject, 
as they had informed us themselves, which its framers had kej)! 
in view. I turned to their communication, and read their very 
words, "tlie consolidation of the Union," and expressed my 
devotion to this sort of consolidation. J said, in terms, that I 
wished not in the sliglitest degree to augment the powers of 
this government; that my object was to i)reserve, not to en- 
large; and that by consolidating the Union I understood no 
more than the strengthening of the union, and i)erpetuatingit. 
Having been thus exi)licit, having thus read from the printed 
book the i)recise words which I adopted, as expressing my own 
sentiments, it passes comprehension how any man could under- 
stand me as contending for an extension of the powers of the 
government, or for consolidation in that odious sense in which 
it means an accumulation, in the federal government, of the 
powers properly belonging to the states. 

Professing to be provoked by what he chose to consider a 
charge made by me against South Carolina, the honorable 
member, Mr. President, has taken up a new crusade against 
New England. Leaving altogether the subject of the public 
lands, in which his success, perhaps, had been neither distin- 
guished nor satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the topic of 
the tariff, he sallied forth in a general assault on the opinions, 
politics and parties of New England, as they have been exhib- 
ited in the last thirty years. This is natural. The "narrow 
policy" of the public lands had proved a legal settlement in 
South Carolina, and was not to be removed. The "accursed 
policy" of the tariff, also, had established the fact of its birth 
and parentage in the same state. No wonder, therefore, the 
gentleman wished to carry the war, as he expressed it, into 
the enemy's country. Prudently willing to quit these sub- 
jects, he was, doubtless, desirous of fastening on others that 
which could not be transferred south of Mason and Dixon's 
line. The politics of New England became his theme; and it 
was in this part of his speech, I think, that he menaced me 
with sore discomfiture. Discomfiture ! Why, sir, when he 
attacks anything which I maintain, and overthrows it, when 



36 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

he turns the right or left of any position which I take up, 
-when he drives me from any ground I choose to occupy, he 
may then talk of discomfiture, but not till that distant day. 
What has he done? Has he maintained his own charges? 
lias he proved what he alleged ? Has he sustained himself in 
his attack on the government, and on the history of the north, 
in the matter of the public lands ? Has he disproved a fact, 
refuted a proposition, weakened an argument, maintained by 
me ? Has he come within beat of drum of any position of 
mine? O, no ; but he has "carried the war into the enemy's 
country !" Carried the war into the enemy's country ! Yes, 
sir, and what sort of a war has he made of it ? Why, sir, he 
has stretched a drag-net over the whole surface of perished 
pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy paragraphs, and fuming 
popular addresses ; over whatever the pulpit in its moments 
of alarm, the press in its heats, and parties in their extrava- 
gance, have severally thrown off in times of general excite- 
ment and violence. He has thus swept together a mass of 
such things as, but that they are now old and cold, the public 
health would have required him rather to leave in their state 
of dispersion. For a good long hour or two, we had the un- 
broken pleasure of listening to the honorable member, while 
he recited with his usual grace and spirit, and with evident 
high gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses, and all the et cet- 
eras of the political press, such as warm heads produce in 
warm times; and such as it would be "discomfiture" indeed 
for any one, whose taste did not delight in that sort of read- 
ing, to be obliged to peruse. 

Mr. President, I shall not — it will not, I trust, be expected 
that I should either now or at any time, separate this farrago 
into parts, and answer and examine its components. I shall 
hardly bestow upon it all a general remark or two. In the 
run of forty years, sir, under this constitution, we have exper- 
ienced sundry successive violent party contests. Party arose, 
indeed, with the constitution itself, and, in some form or 
other, has attended it through the greater part of its history. 
Whether any other constitution than the old articles of con- 
federation was desirable, was itself a question on which part- 



SPEECH IN RKPLY TO HAYXE. 37 

ies formed ; if a new constitution were framed, what powers 
should be given to it was another question ; and when it liad 
been formed, what was, in fact, the just extent of the powers 
actually conferred was a third. Parties, as we know, existed 
under the first administration, as distinctly marked as those 
which have manifested themselves at any subsequent i)eriod. 
The contest immediately preceding the political change in 
1801, and that, again, which existed at the commencement of 
the late war, are other instances of party excitement, of some- 
thing more than usual strength and intensity. In all these 
conflicts there was, no doubt, much of violence on both and 
all sides. It would be impossible, if one had a fancy for such 
employment, to adjust the relative quantum of violence be- 
tween these contending parties. There was enough in each, 
as must always be expected in popular governments. With a 
great deal of proper and decorous discussion, there was min- 
gled a great deal, also, of declamation, virulence, crimination 
and abuse. In regard to any party, probably, at one of the 
leading epochs in the history of parties, enough may be found 
to make out another equally inflamed exhibition, as that with 
which the honorable member has edified us. For myself, sir, 
I shall not rake among the rubbish of bygone times, to see 
what I can find, or whether I cannot find something by which 
I can fix a blot on the escutcheon of any state, any party, or 
any part of the country. General Washington's administra- 
tion was steadily and zealously maintained, as we all know, 
by New England. It was violently opposed elsewhere. We 
know in what quarter he had the most earnest, constant, and 
persevering support, in all his great and leading measures. 
We know where his private and personal character was held 
in the highest degree of attachment and veneration ; and we 
know, too, where his measures w^re opposed, his services 
slighted, and his character vifified. We know, or we might 
know, if we turned to the journals, who expressed respect, 
gratitude, and regret, when he retired from the chief magis- 
tracy, and who refused to express either respect, gratitude or 
regret. I shall not open those journals. Publications more 
abusive or scurrilous never saw the light, than were sent forth 



38 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

against Washington, and all his leading measures, from 
presses south of New England. But I shall not look them up. 
I employ no scavengers, no one is in attendance on me, ten- 
dering such means of retaliation ; and if there were, with an 
ass's load of them, with a bulk as huge as that which the gen- 
tleman himself has produced, I would not touch one of them. 
I see enough of the violence of our own times, to be no way 
anxious to rescue from forgetfulness the extravagances of 
times past. 

Besides, what is all this to the present purpose? It has 
nothing to do with the public lands, in regard to which the 
attack was begun ; and it has nothing to do with those senti- 
ments and opinions which, I have thought, tend to disunion, 
and all of which the honorable member seems to have adopted 
himself, and undertaken to defend. New England has, at 
times — so argues the gentleman — held opinions as dangerous 
as those which he now holds. Suppose this were so ; why 
should lie therefore abuse New England ? If he finds himself 
countenanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while he relies on 
these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, their authors with re- 
proach ? But, sir, if in the course of forty years, there have 
been undue effervesences of party in New England, has the 
same thing happened nowhere else ? Party animosity and 
party outrage, not in New England but elsewhere, denounced 
President Washington, not only as a federalist, but as a tory, 
a British agent, a man who in his high office sanctioned cor- 
ruption. But does the honorable member suppose, that if I 
had a tender here who should put such an effusion of wicked- 
ness and folly into my hand, I would stand up and read it 
against the south ? Parties ran into great heats again in 1799 
and 1800. AVhat was said, sir, or rather what was not said, 
in those years, against John Adams, one of the signers of the 
declaration of independence, and its admitted ablest defender 
on the floor of congress ? If the gentleman wishes to increase 
his stories of party abuse and frothy violence, if he has a de- 
termined proclivity to such pursuits, there are treasures of 
that sort south of the Potomac, much to his taste, yet un- 
touched. I shall not touch thera. 



SPEECH IN llEPLY TU IIAYNE. 39 

Tho gentleman, sir, lias spoken at large of former parties, 
now no longer in being, by their received appi-llations, and 
has undertaken to instruct us, not only in the knowledge of 
their princii)les, but of their respective i)edigrees also. He has 
ascended to their origin, and run out their genealogies. AVilh 
most exemi)lary modesty, he speaks of the party to which he 
professes to have belonged himself, as the true Pure, the only 
honest, patriotic party, derived by regular descent, from 
father to son, from the time of the virtuous Romans ! Spread- 
ing before us i\\G family tree of political parties, he takes es- 
l)ecial care to show himself snugly perched on a popluar bough! 
lie is wakeful to the expediency of adopting such rules of de- 
scent as shall bring him in, in exclusion of others, as an heir 
to the inheritance of all public virtue and all true political 
principle. Ills party and his opinions are sure to be orthodox; 
heterodoxy is con tin ed to his opponents. He spoke, sir, of the 
federalists, and I thought I saw some eyes begin to open and 
stare a little, when he ventured on that ground. I expected 
he would draw his sketches rather lightly, when he looked on 
the circle round him, and especially if he should cast his 
thoughts to the high places out of the senate. Nevertheless, 
he went back to Rome, ad annum urhe condita, and found 
the fathers of the federalists in the primeval aristocrats of that 
renowned empire. He traced the flow of federal blood down 
through successive ages and centuries, till he brought it into 
the veins of the American tories, of whom, by the way, there 
were twenty in the Carolinas for one in Massachusetts. From 
the tories he followed it to the federalists ; and, as the federal 
party was broken up, and there was no possibility of trans- 
mitting it further on this side of the Atlantic, he seems to 
have discovered that it has gone off collaterally, though 
against all the canons of descent, into the ultras of France, 
and finally become extinguished, like exploded gas, among the 
adherents of Don Miguel ! This, sir, is an abstract of the gen- 
tleman's history of federalism. I am not about to controvert 
it. It is not, at present, worth the pains of refutation ; be- 
cause, sir, if at this day any one feels the sin of federalism 
lying heavily on his conscience, he can easily procure remis- 



40 SPEECH IN EEPLY TO HAYNE. 

sion. He im^f even obtain an indulgence, if he be desirous 
of repeating the same transgression. It is an affair of no dif- 
ficulty to get into this same right line of patriotic descent. A 
man nowadays is at liberty to choose his political parentage. 
He may elect his own father. Federalist, or not, he may if he 
choose, claim to belong to the favored stock, and his claim will 
be allowed. He may carry back his pretensions just as far 
as the honorable gentleman himself ; nay, he may make himself 
out the honorable gentleman's cousin, and prove, satisfactorily, 
that he is descended from the same political great-grand- 
father. All this is allowable. We all know a process, sir, by 
which the whole Essex junto could, in one hour, be all washed 
white from their ancient federalism, aud come out, every one 
of them, an original democrat, dyed in the wool ! Some of 
them have actually undergone the operation, and they say it 
is quite easy. The only inconvenience it occasions, as they 
tell us, is a slight tendency of the blood to the face, a soft suf- 
fusion, which, however, is very transient, since nothing is said 
by those whom they join, calculated to deepen the red on the 
cheek, but a prudent silence observed in regard to all the 
past. 

Mr. President, in carrying his warfare, such as it is, into 
New England, the honorable gentlemen all along professes to 
be acting on the defensive. He elects to consider me as hav- 
ing assailed South Carolina, and insists that he comes forth 
only as her champion, and in her defense. Sir, 1 do not ad- 
mit that I made any attack w^hatever on South Carolina. 
Nothing like it. The honorable member, in his first speech, 
expressed opinions, in regard to revenue and some other top- 
ics, which I heard both with pain and with surprise. I told 
the gentleman I was aware that such sentiments were enter- 
tained out of the government, but had not expected to find 
them advanced in it ; that I knew there w-ere persons in the 
south who speak of our Union with indifference or doubt, 
taking pains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing of its 
benefits ; that the honorable member himself, I was sure, 
could never be one of these ; and I regretted the expression of 
such opinions as he had avowed, because I thought their ob- 



SPEECH IN RKPLY TO HAYNE. 41 

vious tendency was to encourage feelings of disrespect to the 
Union, and to weaken its connection. Tliis, sir, is the sum 
and substance of all I said on the su})jeet. And this consti- 
tutes the attack which called on the chivalry of the gentle- 
man, in his own opinion, to harry us with such a foray among 
the party i)amphlets and party proceedings of Massachusetts ! 
If he means that I spoke with dissatisfaction or disrespect of 
the ebullitions of individuals in South Carolina, it is true. 
But if he means that I had assailed the character of the state, 
her honor, or patriotism, that I had reflected on her history 
or her conduct, he has not the slightest ground for any such 
assumption. I did not even refer, 1 think, in my observations, 
to any collection of individuals. I said nothing of the recent 
conventions. I spoke in the most guarded and careful man- 
ner, and only expressed my regret for the publication of opin- 
ions, which I presumed the honorable member disapproved as 
much as myself. In this, it seems, I was mistaken. I do not 
remember that the gentleman had disclaimed any sentiment, 
or any opinion, of a supposed anti-union tendency, which on 
all or any of the recent occasions has been expressed. The 
whole drift of his speech has been rather to prove, that, in 
divers times and manners, sentiments equally liable to my ob- 
jection have been promulgated in New England. 

Then, sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with these re- 
cently promulgated South Carolina opinions. And certainly 
he need have none; for his own sentiments, as now advanced, 
and advanced on reflection, as far as I have been able to com- 
prehend them, go the full length of all these opinions. I pro- 
l)Ose, sir, to say something on these, and to consider how far 
they are just and constitutional. Before doing that, however, 
let me observe that the eulogium pronounced on the character 
of the state of South Carolina, by the honorable gentleman, for 
her revolutionary and other merits, meets my hearty concur- 
rence. I shall not acknowledge that the honorable member 
goes before me in regard for whatever of distinguished talent, 
or distinguished character. South Carolina has produced. I 
claim part of the honor, I partake in the pride, of her great 
names. I claim them for countrymen, one and all, the Lau- 



42 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

rences, the Rutledges, the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Mari- 
ons, Americans all, whose fame is no more to be hemmed in 
by state lines, than their talents and patriotism were capable 
of bein*,^ circumscribed within the same narrow limits. In their 
day and generation, they served and honored the country, and 
the whole country; and their renown is of the treasures of the 
whole country. Him whose honored name the gentleman him- 
self bears— does he esteem me less capable of gratitude for his 
patriotism, or sympathy for his sufferings, than if his eyes had 
lirst opened upon the light of Massachusetts, instead of South 
Carolina ? Sir, does he suppose it in his power to exhibit a 
Carolina name so bright, as to produce envy in my bosom ? 
No, sir, increased gratification and delight, rather. I thank 
God, that, if I am gifted with little of the spirit which is able 
to raise mortals to the skies, I have yet none, as I trust, of that 
other spirit, which would drag angels down. When I shall be 
found, sir, in my place here in the senate, or elsewhere, to sneer 
at public merit, because it happens to spring up beyond the lit- 
tle limits of my own state or neighborhood; when I refuse, for 
any such cause, or for any cause, the homage due to American 
talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and 
the country; or, if I see an uncommon endowment of Heaven, 
if I see extraordinary capacity and virtue, in any sou of the 
south, and if, moved by local prejudice or gangrened by state 
jealousy, I get up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his 
just character and just fame, may my tongue cleave to the 
roof of my mouth ! 

Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in 
refreshing remembrance of the past; let me remind you that, 
in early times, no states cherished greater harmony, both of 
principle and feeling, than Massachusetts and South Carolina. 
Would to God that harmony might again return ! Shoulder 
to shoulder tliey went through the revolution; hand in hand 
they stood round the administration of Washington, and felt 
his own great arm lean on them for support. Unkind feeling, 
if it exists, alienation, and distrust are the growth, unnatural 
to such soils, of false principles since sown. They are weeds, 
the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered. 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIAYNE. 43 

!Mr. President, I shall enter on no encomium upon Massacliu- 
selts; she needs none. There she is. Behold lier, and judge 
for yourselves. There is her history; the world knows it by 
heart. The past, at least, is secure. There is Boston, and 
Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill ; and there they will 
remain forever. The bones of her sons, falling in the great 
struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the soil of 
every state from New England to Georgia; and there they 
will lie forever. And, sir, where American liberty raised its 
first voice, and wliere its youth was nurtured and sustained, 
there it still lives, in the strength of its manhood and full of 
its original spirit. If discord and disunion shall wound it, if 
l)arty strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it, if 
folly and madness, if uneasiness under salutary and necessary 
restraint, shall succeed in separating it from that Union, by 
which alone its existence is made sure, it will stand, in the 
end, by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; 
it will stretch forth its arm with whatever of vigor it may 
still retain over the friends who gather round it; and it will 
fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of 
its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin. 

There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far 
the most grave and important duty, which I feel to be de- 
volved on me by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, 
what I conceive to be the true principles of the constitution 
under which we are here assembled. I might well have de- 
sired that so weighty a task should have fallen into other and 
abler hands. I could have wished that it should have been 
executed by those whose character and experience give weight 
and influence to their opinions, such as cannot ])o.ssibly be- 
long to mine. But, sir, I have met the occasion, not sought 
it; and I shall proceed to state my own sentiments, without 
challenging for them any ])articular regard, with studied 
plainness, and as much precision as possible. 

I understand the honorable gentleman from South Caro- 
lina to maintain, that it is a right of the state legislatures to 
interfere, w henever, in their judgment, this government tran- 
scends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of 
its laws. 



44 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 



I uiulerstand him to maintain this right, as a right existing 
under the constitution, not as a right to overthrow it on the 
ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent 
revolution. 

I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of 
the states, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the 
exercise of power by the general government, of checking it, 
and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent 
of its powers. 

I understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of 
judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority is not 
lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch 
of it; but that, on the contrary, the states may lawfully de- 
cide for themselves, and each state for itself, whether, in a 
given case, the act of the general government transcends its 
power. 

I understand him to insist, that, if the exigency of the case, 
in the opinion of any state government, require it, such state- 
government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act 
of the general government which it deems plainly and palpa- 
bly unconstitutional. 

This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the 
South Carolina doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains. 
I propose to consider it, and compare it with the constitution. 
Allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that I call this the 
South Carolina doctrine only because the gentleman himself has 
so aenominated it. I do not feel at liberty to say that South 
Carolina, as a state, has ever advanced these sentiments. I 
hope she has not, and never may. That a great majority of 
her people are opposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. 
That a majority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, con- 
scientiously believe these laws unconstitutional, may probably 
also be true. But that any majority holds to the right of di- 
rect state interference at state discretion, the right of nullify- 
ing acts of congress by acts of state legislation, is more than 
I know, and what I shall be slow to believe. 

That tliere are individuals besides the honorable gentleman 
who do maintain these opinions, is quite certain. I recollect 



SPEKCH IN RKI'LY TO IIAYNE. 45 

the recent expression of a sentimont, which circuiustanees at- 
tending its ntterance and publication justify us in supposing 
was not unpremeditated: "The sovereignty of the state- 
never to be controHed, construed, or decided on, but by her 
own feehngs of honorable justice." 

The inherent right in the people to reform their government 
I do not deny ; and they have another right, and that is, to 
resist unconstitutional laws, without overturning the govern- 
ment. It is "no doctrine of mine that unconstitutiorud laws 
bind the people. The great question is, Whose prerogative is 
it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of 
the laws ? TOn that, the main debate hinges. 

This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government 
and the source of its power. Whose agent is it ? Is it the 
creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the peo- 
ple ? If the government of the United States be the agent of 
the state governments, then they may control it, provided 
they can agree in the manner of controlling it ; if it be the 
agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, re- 
strain it, modify, or reform it. It is observable enough, that 
the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends leads 
him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general 
government is the creature of the states, but that it is the 
creature of each of the states severally, so that each may as- 
sert the power for itself of determining whether it acts within 
the limits of its authority. It is the servant of four-and- 
twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and 
yet bound to obey all. This absurdity (for it seems no less) 
arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government 
and its true character. It is, sir, the people's constitution, 
the people's government, made for the people, made by the 
people, and answerable to the people.', The people of the 
United States have declared that this constitution shall be the 
supreme law. We must either admit the proposition, or dis- 
pute the authority. The states are, unquestionably, sovereign, 
so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. 
But the state legislatures, as political bodies, however sover- 
eign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as thQ 



46 SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIAYNE. 

people have given power to the general government, so far 
the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds 
of the people, and not of the state governments. We are all 
agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general 
government and the state governments derive their authority 
from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the other, 
be called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and 
the other general and residuary. The national government 
possesses those powers which it can be shown the people have 
conferred on it, and no more. All the rest belongs to the 
state governments, or to the people themselves. So far as the 
people have restrained state sovereignty, by the expression of 
their will, in the constitution of the United States, so far, it 
must be admitted, state sovereignty is effectually controlled. 
I do not contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. 
The sentiment to which I have referred propounds that state 
sovereignty is only to be controlled by its own "feeling of 
justice;" that is to say, it is not to be controlled at all, for 
one who is to follow his own feelings, is under no legal con- 
trol. Now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact 
is, that the people of the United States have chosen to impose 
control on state sovereignties. There are those, doubtless, 
who wish they had been left without restraint ; but the con- 
stitution has ordered the matter differently. To make war, 
for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty ; but the constitu- 
tion declares that no state shall make war. To coin money is 
another exercise of sovereign power; but no state is at liberty 
to coin money. Again, the constitution says that no sovereign 
state shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. These prohi- 
bitions it must be confessed, are a control on the state sover- 
eignty of South Carolina, as well as of the other states, which 
does not arise " from her own feelings of honorable justice." 
Such an opinion, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest pro- 
visions of the constitution. 

Resolutions, sir, have been recently passed by the legislature 
of South Carolina. I need not refer to them ; they go no far- 
ther than the honorable gentleman himself has gone, and I 
hope not so far. I content myself, therefore, with debating 
the matter with him. 



SPKKC'II IN in<:i»LY TO HAYNE. 47 

And now, sir, what I liave first to say on tliis subject is, 
that at no time, and under no circumstances, has New Eng- 
hmd, or any state in New Eii<;hin(l, or any respectable body 
of persons in New En<j:hind, or any public man of standing in 
New England, put forth such a doctrine as this Carolina doc- 
trine. 

The gentleman has found no case, he can find none, to sup- 
port his own opinions by New England authority. New Eng- 
land has studied the constitution in other schools, and under 
other teachers. She looks upon it with other regards, and 
deems more highly and reverently both of its just authority 
and its utility and excellence. The history of her legislative 
proceedings may be traced. The ephemeral effusions of tem- 
porary bodies, called together by the excitement of the occa- 
sion, may be hunted up; they have been hunted up. The 
opinions and votes of her public men, in and out of congress, 
may be explored. It will all be in vain. The Carolina doc- 
trine can derive from her neither countenance nor support. 
She rejects it now ; she always did reject it; and till she loses 
her senses, she always will reject it. The honorable member 
has referred to expressions on the subject of the embargo law, 
made in this place, by an honorable and venerable gentleman, 
(Mr. Hillhouse,) now favoring us with his presence. He quotes 
that distinguished senator as saying, that, in his judgment, 
the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that, therefore, in 
his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it. That, sir, 
IS perfectly constitutional language. An unconstitutional law 
ianfit binding; hut then it does not rest uith a resolution or a 
law of a state legislature to decide whether an act of congress 
he or he not constitutional. An unconstitutional act of con- 
gress would not bind the people of this district, although they 
have no legislature to interfere in their behalf; and, on the 
other hand, a constitutional law of congress does bind the 
citizens of every state, although all their legislatures should 
undertake to annul it by act or resolution. The venerable 
Connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound prin- 
ciples and enlarged knowledge: a statesman ju-actised and 
experienced, bred in the company of Washington, and holding 



48 SPEECH IN EEPLY TO HAYNE. 

just views upon the nature of our governments. He believed 
the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others; but what 
then ? Who did he suppose was to decide that question ? The 
state legislatures? Certainly not. No such sentiment ever 
escaped his lips. 

Let us follow up, sir, this New England opposition to the 
embargo laws; let us trace it, till we discern the principle 
which controlled and governed New England throughout the 
whole course of that opposition. We shall then see what sim- 
ilarity there is between the New England school of constitu- 
tional opinions, and this modern Carolina school. The gen- 
tleman, I think, read a petition from some single individual 
addressed to the legislature of Massachusetts, asserting the 
Carolina doctrine; that is, the right of state interference to 
arrest the laws of the Union. The fate of that petition shows 
the sentiment of the legislature. It met no favor. The opin- 
ions of Massachusetts were otherwise. They had been ex- 
pressed in 1798, in answer to the resolutions of Virginia, and 
she did not depart from them, nor bend them to the times. 
Misgoverned, WTonged, oppressed, as she felt herself to be, 
she still held fast her integrity to the Union. The gentleman 
may find in her proceedings much evidence of dissatisfaction 
with the measures of government, and great and deep dislike 
to the embargo; all this makes the case so much the stronger 
for her; for, notwithstanding all this dissatisfaction and dis- 
like, she claimed no right, still, to sever asunder the bonds 
of the Union. There was heat, and there was anger in her 
political feeling. Be it so; her heat or her anger did not, 
nevertheless, betray her into infidelity to the government. 
The gentleman labors to prove that she disliked the embargo 
as much as South Carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed 
her dislike as strongly. Be it so; but did she propose the 
Carolina remedy? did she threaten to interfere, by state 
authority, to annul the laws of the Union? That is the ques- 
tion for the gentleman's consideration. 

No doubt, sir, a great majority of the people of New Eng- 
land conscientiously believed the embargo law of 1807 uncon- 
stitutional; as conscientiously, certainly, as the people of Soutli 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO IJAYNE. 40 

Carolina hold that opinion of the tarilT. They reasoned thns: 
Congress has i^ower to regulate eoninieree; but here is a law 
they said, stopping all commerce and stopping it indefinitely. 
The law is perpetual; that is, it is not limited in i)ointof time, 
and must of course continue until it shall be repealed by some 
otlier law. It is as perpetual, therefore, as the law against 
treason or murder. Now is this regulating commerce, or de- 
stroying it? Is it guiding, controlling, giving the rule to 
commerce, as a subsisting thing, or is it putting an end to it 
altogether ? Nothing is more certain, than that a majority in 
New England deemed this law a violation of the constitution. 
The very case required by the gentleman to justify state inter- 
f rence had then arisen. Massachusetts believed this law to 
be "a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power 
not granted by the constitution." Deliberate as it was, for it 
was long continued; palpable she thought it, as no words in 
the constitution gave the power, and only a construction, in 
her opinion most violent, raised it; dangerous it was, since it 
threatened utter ruin to her most important interests. Here, 
then, was a Carolina case. How did Massachusetts deal with 
it ? It was, as she thought, a plain, manifest, palpable viola- 
tion of the constitution, and it brought ruin to her doors. 
Thousands of families, and hundreds of thousands of individ- 
uals, were beggared by it. While she saw and felt all this, 
she saw and felt also, that, as a measure of national policy, it 
was perfectly futile; that the country was noway benefited by 
that which caused so much individual distress; that it was ef- 
ficient only for the production of evil, and all that evil in- 
rticted on ourselves. In such a case, under such circum- 
stances, how did Massachusetts demean herself ? Sir, she re- 
monstrated, she memorialized, she addressed herself to the 
general government, not exactly " with the concentrated 
energy of passion," but with her own strong sense, and the 
energy of sober conviction. But she did not interpose the arm 
of her own power to arrest the law, and break the embargo. 
Far from it. Her principles bound her to two things; and 
she followed her principles, lead where they migiit. First, to 
submit to every constitutional law of congress, and secondly, 



50 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HATNE. 

if the constitutional validity of the law be doubted, to refer 
that question to the decision of the proper tribunals. The 
first principle is vain and ineffectual without the second. A 
majority of us in New England believed the embargo law un- 
constitutional ; but the great question was, and always will be 
in such cases, Who is to decide this ? Who is to judge be- 
tween the people and the government ? And, sir, it is quite 
plain, that the constitution of the United States confers on the 
government itself, to be exercised by its appropriate depart- 
ment, and under its own responsibility to the people, this 
power of deciding ultimately and conclusively upon the just 
extent of its own authority. If this had not been done, we 
should not have advanced a single step beyond the old con- 
federation. 

Being fully of opinion that the embargo law was unconstitu- 
tional, the people of New England were yet equally clear in 
the opinion— it was a matter they did not doubt upon— that 
the question, after all, must be decided by ttie judicial tribu- 
nals of the United States. Before these tril)unals, therefore, 
they brought the question. Under the provisions of the law, 
they had given bonds to millions in amount, and which were 
alleged to be forfeited. They suffered the bonds to be sued, 
and thus raised the question. In the old-fashioned way of 
settling disputes, they went to law. The case came to hear- 
ing, and solemn argument; and he who espoused their cause, 
and stood up for them against the validity of the embargo 
act, was none other than that great man, of whom the gentle- 
man has made honorable mention, Samuel Dexter. He was 
then, sir, in the fullness of his knowledge, and the maturity 
of his strength. He had retired from long and distinguished 
public service here, to the renewed pursuit of professional 
duties, carrying with him all that enlargement and expansion 
all the new strength and force, which an acquaintance with 
the more general subjects discussed in the national councils is 
capable of adding to professional attainment, in a mind of true 
greatness and comprehension. He was a lawyer, and he was 
also a statesman. He had studied the constitution, when he 
filled pu])lic station, that he might defend it. He had exam- 



SPKEOH IN RKPLY TO IIAYSE. 51 

iiu'd tho principles that niijTjht maintain them. More tlian all 
men, or at least as mneli as any man, he was attached to the 
general government and to the union of the states. His feel- 
ings and oi)inions all ran in that direction. A question of 
constitutional law, too, was, of all subjects, that one which 
was best suited to his talents and learning. Aloof from tech- 
nicality, and unfettered by artiticial rule, such a question gave 
opportunity for that deep and clear analysis, that mighty 
grasp of principle, which so much distinguished his higher 
efforts. His very statement was argument; his inference 
seemed demonstration. The earnestness of his own conviction 
wrought c<Mn'iction in others. One was convinced, and be- 
lieved, and assented, because it was gratifying, delightful, to 
think, and feel, and believe, in unison with an intellect of such 
evident superiority. 

Mr. Dexter, sir, such as I have described him, argued the 
New England cause. He put into his effort his whole heart, 
as well as all the powers of his understanding; for he had 
avowed, in the most public manner, his entire concurrence 
with his neighbors on the point in dispute. He argued the 
cause ; it was lost, and New England submitted. The estab- 
lished tribunals pronounced the law constitutional, and New 
England acquiesced. Now, sir, is not this the exact opposite 
of the doctrine of the gentleman from South Carolina ? Ac- 
cording to him, instead of referring to the judicial tribunals, 
we should have broken up the embargo by laws of our own ; 
we should have repealed it, quoad New England ; for we had 
a strong, palpable, and oppressive case. Sir, we believed the 
embargo unconstitutional ; but still that w^as matter of opinion, 
and who was to decide it ? We thought it a clear case ; but, 
nevertheless, we did not take the law into our own hands, be- 
cause we did not wish to bring about a rsvolution, nor to 
break up the Union ; for I maintain, that between submission 
to the decision of the constituted tribunals, and revoluti(m, or 
disunion, there is no middle <;round ; there is no ambiguous 
condition, half allegiance and half rebellion. And, sir, how 
futile, how very futile it is, to admit the right of state inter- 
ference, and then attempt to save it from the character of un- 



52 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

lawful resistance, by adding terms of qualification to the 
causes and occasions, leaving all these qualifications, like the 
case itself, in the discretion of the state governments. It 
must be a clear case, it is said, a deliberate case, a palpable 
case, a dangerous case. But then the state is still left at lib- 
erty to decide for herself what is clear, what is deliberate, what 
is palpable, what is dangerous. Do adjectives and epithets 
avail anything ? Sir, the human mind is so constituted, that 
the merits of both sides of a controversy appear very clear, 
and very palpable, to those who respectively espouse them ; 
and both sides usually grow clearer as the controversy ad- 
vances. South Carolina sees unconstitutionality in the tariff ; 
she sees oppression there, also, and she sees danger. Pennsyl- 
vania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same tariff, 
and sees no such thing in it ; she sees it all constitutional, all 
useful, all safe. The faith of South Carolina is strengthened by 
opposition, and she now not only sees, but resolves^ that the 
tariff is palpably. unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous ; 
but Pennsylvania not to be behind her neighbors, and equally 
willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident asseveration, 
resolves^ also, and gives to every warm affirmative of South 
Carolina, a plain, downright, Pennsylvania negative. South 
Carolina to show the strength and unity of her opinion, 
brings her assembly to a unanimity, witlTin seven voices ; 
Pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this respect any more than 
in others, reduces her dissentient fraction to a single vote. 
Now, sir, again, I ask the gentleman. What is to be done? 
Are these states both right ? Is he bound to consider them 
both right ? If not, which is in the wrong ? or rather, which 
has the best right to decide ? x\nd if he, and if I, are not to 
know what the constitution iheans, and what it is, till these 
two state legislatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree 
in its construction, what have we sworn to, when we have 
sworn to maintain it ! I was forcibly struck, sir, with one re- 
flection, as the gentleman went on in his speech. He quoted 
Mr. Madison's resolutions, to prove that a state may interfere, 
in a case of delil)erate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a 
power not granted. The honorable member supposes the 



srEKcii IX RKPi.Y TO iiaynp:. 53 

tariff law to be such an exorcise of jjowcr ; and that conse- 
quently a case has arisen in wliicii the state may, if it see lit, 
interfere by its own law. Now it so happens, nevertheless, 
that Mr. Madison deems this same tariff law quite constitu- 
tional. Instead of a clear and palpable vi»)]ation, it is, in his 
jud<^ment, no violation at all. 80 that, while they use his 
authority for a hypothetical case, they reject it in the vcsry 
case before them. All this, sir, shows the inherent futility, I 
had almost said a stronger word, of conceding this power of 
interference to the states, and then attempting to secure it 
from abuse by inq)osing qualifications of which the states 
themselves are to judge. One of two things is true ; either 
the laws of the Union are beyond the discretion and beyond 
the control of the states ; or else we have no constitution of 
general government, and are thrust back again to the days of 
the confederacy. 

Let me here say, sir, that if the gentleman's doctrine 
had been received and acted upon in New England, in the 
times of the embargo and non-intercourse, we should probably 
not now have been here. The government would very likely 
have gone.to pieces, and crumbled into dust. No stronger case 
can ever arise than existed under those laws ; no states can 
ever entertain a clearer conviction than the New England 
states then entertained ; and if they had been under the 
influence of that heresy of opinion, as I must call it, which 
the honorable member espouses, this Union would, in all 
probability, have been scattered to the four winds. I ask the 
gentleman, therefore, to apply his principles to that case ; 
I ask him to come forth and declare, whether, in his opinion, 
the New England states would have been justified in interfer- 
ing to break up the embargo system under the conscientious 
opinions which they held upon it ? Had they a right to annul 
that law ? Does he admit or deny ? If what is thought palpa- 
bly unconstitutional in South Carolina justifies that state in 
arresting the progress of the law, tell me whether that which 
was thought palpably unconstitutional also in Massachusetts 
would have justified her in doing the same thing. Sir, I deny 
the whole doctrine. It has not a foot of ground in the consti- 



54 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

tution to stand on. No public man of reputation ever ad- 
vanced it in Massachusetts in the warmest times, or could 
maintain himself upon it there at any time. 

I must now beg to ask, sir, Whence is this supposed right of 
the states derived ? Where do they find the power to inter- 
fere with the laws of the Union ? Sir, the opinion which the 
honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total 
misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this govern- 
ment, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be 
a popular government, erected by the people ; those who ad- 
minister it, responsible to the people ; and itself capable of be- 
ing amended and modified, just as the people may choose it 
should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the 
people, as the state governments. It is created for one pur- 
pose; the state governments for another. It has its own pow- 
ers ; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them 
to arrest the operation of a law of congress, than with congress 
to arrest the operation of their laws. We are here to admin- 
ister a constitution emanating immediately from the people, and 
trusted by them to our administration. It is not the creature 
of the state governments. It is of no moment to the argument, 
that certain acts of the state legislatures are necessary to fill our 
seats in this body. That is not one of their original state pow- 
ers, a part of the sovereignty of the state. It is a duty which 
the people, by the constitution itself, have imposed on the state 
legislatures; and which they might have left to be performed 
elsewhere, if they had seen fit. So they have left the choice of 
president with electors; but all this does not affect the propo- 
sition that this whole government, president, senate, and house 
of representatives, is a popular government. It leaves it still 
all its popular character. The governor of the state (in some 
of the states) is chosen, not directly by the people, but by those 
who are chosen by the people, for the purpose of performing, 
among other duties, that of electing a governor. Is the gov- 
ernment of the state, on that account, not a popular govern- 
ment? This government, sir, is the independent offspring 
of the popular will. It is not the creature of state legislatures; 
nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought 



SPEKCII IN KKl'LV lO IIAYNK. 55 

it into existence, established it, and luive hitherto supported it, 
for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain sal- 
utary restraints on state sovereignties. The states cannot now 
make war; they (cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, 
each for itself, se])arate regulations of commerce ; they cannot 
lay imposts; they cannot coin money. If this constitution, 
sir, be the creature of state legislatures, it must be admitted 
that it has obtained a strange control over the volition of its 
creators. 

The people, then, sir, erected this government. They gave 
it a constitution, and in that constitution they have enumerated 
the powers which they bestow on it. They have made it a 
limited government. They have defined its authority. They 
have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; 
and all others, they declare, are 'reserved to the states or the 
people. But, sir, they have not stopped here. If they had, 
they would have accomplished but half their work. No defi- 
nition can be so clear, as to avoid possibility of doubt ; no 
limitation so precise, as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, then, 
shall construe this grant of the people ? Who shall interpret 
their will, where it may be supposed they have left it doubtful ? 
With whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on. 
the powers of the government ? Sir, they have settled all this 
in the fullest manner. They have left it with the government 
itself, in its appropriate branches. Sir, the very chief end, the 
main design, for which the whole constitution was framed and 
adopted, was to establish a government that should not be 
obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion 
and state discretion. The people had had quite enough of that 
kind of government under the confederacy. Under that sys- 
tem, the legal action, the application of law to individuals, be- 
longed exclusively to the states. Congress could only recom- 
mend; their acts were not of binding force, till the states had 
adopted and sanctioned them. Are we in that condition still ? 
Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion and state construc- 
tion ? Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain 
the constitution under which we sit. 
But, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the constitution 



56 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions 
of constitutional law. There are in the constitution grants of 
powers to congress, and restrictions on those powers. There 
are, also, prohibitions on the states. Some authority must, 
therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to 
fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, 
and prohibitions. The constitution has itself pointed out, or- 
dained, and established that authority. How has it aceom- 

/ plished this great and essential end ? By declaring, sir, that 
^'' the constitution., and the laws of the United states made in 
pursuance thereof., shall he the supreme law of the land., any- 
thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary 

■ notwithstanding."' 

This, sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy 
of the constitution and laws of the United States is declared. 
The people so will it. No state law is to be valid which comes 
in conflict with the constitution, or any law of the United 
States passed in pursuance of it. But who shall decide this 
question of interference ? To whom lies the last appeal ? This, 
sir, the constitution itself decides also, by declaring " that the 
judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the con- 
stitution and laws of the United States.'''' These two provis- 
ions, sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the key- 
stone of the arch ! With these it is a government; without 
them it is a confederacy. In pursuance of these clear and ex- 
press provisions, congress established, at its very first session, 
in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, 
and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the 
final decision of the supreme court. It then, sir, became a 
government. It then had the means of self -protection ; and 
but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now among 
the things which are past. Having constituted the government, 
and declared its powers, the people have further said, that, since 
somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the gov- 
ernment shall itself decide; subject, always, like other popular 
governments, to its responsibility to the people. And now, sir, 
T repeat, how is it that a state legislature acquires any power to 
interfere ? Who, or what, gives them the right to say to the 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIAYNK. 57 

people, " We, who are your agents mid servants, for one pur- 
pose, will undertake to decide, that your other agents and ser- 
vants, appointed by you for another purpose, have transcended 
the authority you gave them !" The reply would l)e, I tliink, 
not impertinent, — '' Who made you a judge over another's ser- 
vants? To their own masters they stand or fall." 

Sir, I deny this power of state legislatuics altogether. It 
cannot stand the test of examination. Gentlemen may say, 
that, in an extreme case, a state government might protect 
the people from intolerable oppression. Sir, in such a case, the 
])eople might protect themselves, without the aid of the state 
governments. Such a case warrants revolution. It must make, 
when it comes, a law for itself. A nullifying act as a state 
legislature cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more 
lawful. In maintaining these sentiments, sir, lam but assert- 
ing the rights of the people. I state what they have declared, 
and insist on their right to declare it. They have chosen to 
repose this power in the general government, and I think it 
my duty to support it, like other constitutional powers. 

For myself, sir, I do not admit the jurisdiction of South Car- 
olina, or any other state, to prescribe my constitutional duty, 
or to settle, between me and the people, the validity of laws of 
congress, for which I have voted. I decline her umpirage. I 
have not sworn to support the constitution according to her con- 
struction of its clauses. I have not stipulated by my oath of 
office or otherwise, to come under any responsibility, except 
to the people, and those whom they have appointed to pass 
upon the question, jkvhether laws, supported by my votes, con- 
form to the constitution of the country. And, sir, if we look 
to the general nature of the case, could anything have been more 
preposterous, than to make a government for the whole Union, 
and yet leave its powers subject, not to one interpretation, but 
to thirteen or twenty-four interpretations ! Instead of one tri- 
bunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to de- 
cide for all, shall constitutional questions be left to four-and- 
twenty popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and 
none bound to respect the decisions of others; and each at lib- 
erty, too, to give a new construction on every new election of 



58 SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIxVYNE. 

its own members ? "Would anything, with such a principle in 
it, rather with such a destitution of all principle, be fit to be 
called a government ? No, sir. It should not be denominated 
a constitution. It should be called, rather, a collection of top- 
ics for everlasting controversy; heads of debate for a disputa- 
tious people. It would not be a government. It would not 
be adequate to any practical good, or fit for any country to live 
under. 

To avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow me to 
repeat again, in the fullest manner, that I claim no powers 
for the government by forced or unfair construction. I admit 
that it is a government of strictly limited powers ; of enumer- 
ated, specified, and particularized powers ; and that whatsoever 
is not granted, is withheld. But notwithstanding all this, and 
how^ever the grant of powers may be expressed, its limit 
and extent may yet, in some cases, admit of doubt ; and 
the general government would be good for nothing, it would 
be incapable of long existing, if some mode had not been pro- 
vided in wiiich those doubts, as they should arise, might 
be peaceably, but authoritatively solved. 

And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gen- 
tleman's doctrine a little into its practical application. Let us 
look at his probable modus ojjerandi. If a thing can be done, 
an ingenious man can tell how it is to be done. Now I 
wish to be informed lioiv this state interference is to be put in 
practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. We will 
take the existing case of the tariff law. South Carolina is said 
to have made up her opinion upon it. If jv^e do not repeal it, 
(as we probably shall not,) she will then apply to the case the 
remedy of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass 
a law of her legislature, declaring the several acts of congress, 
usually called the tariff laws, null and void, so far as they re- 
spect South Carolina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a 
paper transaction, and easy enough. But the collector at 
Charleston is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws. 
He, therefore, must be stopped. The collector will seize 
the goods if the tariff duties are not paid. The state authori- 
ties will undertake their rescue ; the marshal, with his posse, 



SPEKCII IN REPLY TO IIAYNE. 6d 

will come to the collector's aid, and here llie contest be^Miis. 
The militia of the state will be called out to sustain tlie nulli- 
fying act. They will march, sir, under a very gallant leader ; 
for I believe the honorable member himself commands the 
militia of that part of the state. He will raise the nullifying 
ACT on his standard, and spread it out as his banner ! It will 
have a preamble, bearing, that the tariff laws are i)alpable, 
deliberate, and dangerous violations of the constitution ! He 
will proceed, with his banner flying, to the custom-house in 
Charleston, 

" All the while, 
Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds." 

Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he 
must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. 
This he will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a 
grave countenance, considering what hand South Carolina 
herself had in that of 1816. But, sir, the collector would not, 
probably, desist at his bidding. He would show him the law 
of congress, the treasury instruction, and his own oath of 
office. He would say, he should perform his duty, come what 
might. 

Here would come a pause ; for they say that a certain still- 
ness precedes the tempest. The trumpeter would hold his 
breath awhile, and before all this military array should fall on 
the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable 
some of those composing it would request of their gallant 
commander-in-chief to be informed a little upon the point of 
law ; for they have, doubtless, a just respect for his opinions 
as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. They 
know he has read Blackstone and the constitution, as well ^s 
Turenne and Vauban. They would ask him, therefore, some- 
thing concerning their rights in this matter. They would 
inquire, whether it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a 
law of the United States. What would be the nature of their 
offence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force 
and array, resisted the execution in Carolina of a law of the 
United States, and it should turn out, after all, that the law 
was constitutional! He would answer, of course, treason. 



60 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYNE. 

No lawyer could give any other answer. John Fries, he 
would tell them, had learned that, some years ago. How, 
then, they would ask, do you propose to defend us ? We are 
not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking people 
off that we do not much relish. How do you propose to 
defend us? "Look at my floating banner," he would reply ; 
"see there the nullifying law P'' Is it your opinion, gallant 
commander, they would then say, that, if we should be 
indicted for treason, that same floating banner of yours would 
make a good plea in bar? "South Carolina is a sovereign 
state," he would reply. That is true ; but would the judge 
admit our plea ! " These tariff laws," he would repeat "are 
unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously." That 
may all be so ; but if the tribunal should not happen to be of 
that opinion, shall we swing for it? We are ready to die for 
our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dying 
without touching the ground ! After all, that is a sort of hemp 
tax worse than any part of the tariff. 

Mr. President, the honorable gentleman would be in a 
dilemma, like that of another great general. He \\T»uld have 
a knot* before him which he could not untie. He must cut it 
with his sword. He must say to his followers, "Defend your- 
selves with your bayonets ;" and this is war — civil war. 

Direct collision, therefore, between force and force, is the 
unavoidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconsti- 
tutional laws which the gentleman contends for. It must 
happen in the very first case to which it is applied. Is not 
this the plain result ? To resist by force the execution of a 
law, generally, is treason. Can the courts of the United 
States take notice of the indulgence of a state to commit 
treason? The common saying that a state cannot commit 
treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. Can she authorize 



* A knot— the Gordian knot. Gordins, a Phrygian peasant, was chosen 
king by the Phrygians. He consecrated his wagon to Jupiter, and so skill- 
fully tied the yoke to the pole that the ends of the cord could not be seen. 
It was current rumor that whoever untied the knot should be King of Asia, 
and when Alexander the Great was shown it, he cut it with his sword, say- 
ing, " It is thus we loose our knots." 



SrKECII IN KErLY TO IIAYNE. 61 

others to do it? If John Frios had i)n)diicod an act of Penn- 
sylvania, annulling the hiw of eon«^ress, would it have lielj^'d 
his case? Talk about it as we will, Ihesi! doctrines go the 
length of revolution. They are incompatil)le with any peacea- 
ble administration of the government. They lead directly to 
disunion and civil commotion ; and therefore it is, that at 
their commencement, when they are first found to be main- 
tained by respectable men, and in a tangible form, I enter my 
public protest against them all. 

The honorable gentleman argues, that if this government 
be the sole judge of the extent of its own powers, whether that 
right of judging be in congress or the supreme court, it equally 
subverts state sovereignty. This tlie gentleman sees, or thinks 
he sees, although he cannot perceive how the right of judging, 
in this matter, if left to the exercise of state legislatures, has 
any tendency to subvert the government of the Union. Tlie 
gentleman's opinion may be, that the right ought not to have 
been lodged with the general government ; he may like better 
such a constitution as we should have under the right of state 
interference ; but I ask him to meet me on the plain matter of 
fact. I ask him to meet me on the constitution itself. I ask 
him if the power is not found there, clearly and visibly found 
there ? 

But, sir, what is this danger, and wdiat are the grounds of 
it ? Let it be remembered that the constitution of the United 
States is not unalterable. It is to continue in its present form 
no longer than the people who established it shall choose to 
continue it. If they shall become convinced that they have 
made an injudicious or inexpedient partition and distribution 
of power between the state governments and the general gov- 
ernment, they can alter that distribution at will. 

If anything be found in the national constitution, either by 
original provision or subsequent interpretation, which ought 
not to be in it, the people know how to get rid of it. If any 
construction be established unaccei)table to them, so as to be- 
come practically a part of the constitution, they will amend 
it, at their own sovereign pleasure. But while the people 
choose to maintain it as it is, while they are satisfied with it, 



62 SPEECH IN EEPLY TO HAYXE. 

and refuse to change it, who has given, or who can give, to 
the state legislatures a right to alter it, either by interference, 
construction, or otherwise ? Gentlemen do not seem to recol- 
lect that the people have any power to do anything for them- 
selves. They imagine there is no safety for them, any longer 
than they are under the close guardianship of the state legis- 
latures. Sir, the people have not trusted their safety, in re- 
gard to the general constitution, to these hands. They have 
required other security, and taken other bonds. They have 
chosen to trust themselves, first, to the plain words of the in- 
strument, and to such construction as the government itself, 
in doubtful cases, should put on its own powers, and under 
their oaths of office, and subject to their responsibility to 
them; just as the people of a state trust their own state gov- 
ernment with a similar power. Secondly, they have reposed 
their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in their 
own power to remove their own servants and agents whenever 
they see cause. Thirdly, they have reposed trust in the ju- 
dicial power, which, in order that it might be trustworthy, 
they have made as respectable, as disinterested, and as inde- 
pendent as was practicable. Fourthly, tiiey have seen fit to 
rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known 
and admitted power to alter or amend the constitution, peace- 
ably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects 
or imperfections. And, finally, the people of the United 
States have at no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, au- 
tliorized any state legislature to construe or interpret their 
high instrument of government; much less, to interfere, by 
their own power, to arrest its course and operation. 

If, sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise than 
they have done, their constitution could neither have been 
preserved, nor would it have been worth preserving. And if 
its plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and these new 
doctrines interpolated in it, it will become as feeble and help- 
less a being as its enemies, whether early or more recent, 
could possibly desire. It will exist in every state, but as a 
poor dependent on state permission. It must borrow leave to 
be ; and will be, no longer than state pleasure, or state discre- 



SPEECH IN REPLY TO IIAYNE. G3 

tioii, sees fit to grant the indulgence, and prolong its poor ex- 
istence. 

But, sir, although there are fears, there are hojjcs also. 
The people have preserved this, their own chosen constitution, 
for forty years, and have seen their happiness, prosperity, and 
renown grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. 
They are now, generally, strongly attached to it. Overthrown 
by direct assault, it cannot be ; evaded, undermined, nullified, 
it will not be, if w^e, and those who shall succeed us here, as 
agents and representatives of the people, shall conscientiously 
and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public 
trust, faithfully to preserve, and wisely to administer it. 
(/ Mr. President, I have thus stated the reasons of my dissent 
to the doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. 
I am conscious of having detained you and the senate much 
too long. I was drawn into the debate with no previous de- 
liberation, such as is suited to the discussion of so grave and 
important a subject. But it is a subject of which my heart is 
full, and I have not been willing to suppress the utterance of 
its spontaneous sentiments. I cannot, even now, persuade 
myself to relinquish it, without expressing once more my deep 
conviction, that, since it respects nothing less than the union 
of the states, it is of most vital and essential importance to 
the public happiness. I profess, sir, in my career hitherto, to 
have kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the 
whole country, and the preservation of our federal Union. It 
is to that Union we owe our safety at home, and our consider- 
ation and dignity abroad. It is to that Union that we are 
chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our 
country. That Union we reached only by the discipline of 
our virtues in the severe school of adversity. It had its ori- 
gin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate com- 
merce, and ruined credit. Under its benign influences, these 
great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, and 
sprang forth with newness of life. Every year of its duration 
has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings ; 
and although our territory has stretched out wider and wider, 
and our population spread farther and farther, they have not 



fi4 SPEECH IN REPLY TO HAYXE. 

oiitrnn its protection or its benefits. It has been to us all a 
copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness. 

I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the Union, to 
see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have 
not coolly w^eighed the chances of preserving liberty when the 
bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have 
not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, 
to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of 
the abyss below ; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor 
in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be 
mainly bent on considering, not how the Union should be best 
preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the 
people when it shall be broken up and destroyed. While the 
Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread 
out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not 
to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that 
curtain may not rise ! God grant that on my vision never 
may be opened w^hat lies behind ! When my eyes shall be 
turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not 
see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a 
once glorious Union ; on states dissevered, discordant, belliger- 
ent ; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, 
in fraternal blood ! Let their last feeble and lingering glance 
rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known 
and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its 
arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a stripe 
erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured,-^ bearing for its 
motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this 
worth?" nor those other w^ords of delusion and folly, "Liberty 
first and Union afterwards ;" but everywhere, spread all over 
in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as 
they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind 
under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every 
true American heart — Liberty and Union, now^ and forever, 
one and inseparable ! 



..J 



- / 



English Classic Series, 

FOR 

Classes in English Literature, Reading, Grammar, etc. 

EDITED BY EMINENT ENGLISH ANO AMERICAN SCHOLARS. 

Each Volume contains a Sketch of tht Author's Life^ Prefatory and 

Ejcplanatory J'''ites, etc., etc. 



of Dante. 



Byron's Prophecy 

(Cantos I. and II.) 
Milton'a L' Allegro, and O i*en- 

seroso. 
Lord Bacon's Essays, JIyU and 

Moral. (Selected.; 
Byron's Prisoner of Chillon, 
Moore's Fire Worshippers. 

(Lalla Rooktf, Selected.) 
Goldsmith's Deserted Village. 
Scott's Marmion. (Selectioua 

from Cap to VI.) 
8 Scott's liay of the Last Minstrel. 

Jiitroduction and Canto I. ) 
Burns'sCotters Saturday Night, 

and other Poems. 
Crabbe's The A'illage. 
Campbell's Pleasures of Hope. 

(Abridgment of Part I.) 
Macaulay's Essay on Bunyan's 

Pilgrim's Progress. 
13 Macaulay's Armada, and other 

Poems. 
Shakespeare's Merchant of Ve- 
nice. (Selections from Acts I., 

III., and IV.) 
Goldsmith's Traveller. 
Hogg's Queen's. Wake, andKil- 

meny. 
Coleridge's Ancient Mariner. 
Addison's Sir Roger de Cover- 
ley. 
Gray's Eleg^ in a Country 

Churchyard. 
20 Scott's Lady of the Lake. (Canto 

I.) 
Shakespeare's As You Like It, 

etc. (Selections.) 
Shakespeare's King John, and 

Richard 11. (Selections.) 
Shakespeare's Henry IV., Hen- 
ry v., Henry VI. (Selections.) 
»4 Shakespeare's Henry VIII., and 

Julius Caesar. (Selections.) 
Wordsworth's Excursion. (Bk.I.) 
Pope's Essay on Criticism. 
Spenser's Faerie Queene. (Cantos 

I. an.l II.) 
88 Cowper's Task. (Book I.) 
29 Milton's Comus. 
80 Tennyson's Enoch Arden, The 

Lotus Eaters, Ulysses, and 

Tlthonns. 



4 
6 

6 
7 



9 

10 
11 

12 



14 



15 
16 

17 
18 

119 



21 
22 

23 



25 
26 
27 



31 Irvlng*8 Sketch Book. (Selec- 

tions.) 

32 Dickens's Christmas CaroL 

(.Condensed.) 

33 Carlyle's Hero as a Prophet. 

34 Macaulay's Warren Hastings. 

(Condensed.) 

35 Goldsmith's Vicar of Wake- 

field. (Condensed.) 

36 Tennyson's The Two Voices* 

and a Dream of Fair Women. 

37 3Iemory Quotations. 

38 Cavalier Poets. 

39 Dryden's Alexander's Feast, 

and MacFleckuoe. 

40 Keats' The Eve of St. Agnes. 

41 Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hol- 

low. 

42 Lamb's Tales from Shake- 

speare. 

43 Le Row's How to Teach Read- 

ing. 

44 Webster's Bunker Hill Ora- 

tions. 

45 The Academy OrthoSpist. A 

Manual of Pronunciation. 

46 Milton's Lycidas, and Hymn 

on the Nativity. 

47 Bryant's Thanatopsis, and other 

Poems. 

48 Ruskin's Modern Painters. 

(Selections.) 

49 The Shakespeare Speaker. 

50 Thackeray's Roundabout Pa- 

pers. 

51 Webster's Oration on Adams 

and Jefferson. 

52 Brown's Rab and His FHonds. 

53 Morris's Life and Death of 

Jason. 

54 Burke's Speech on American 

Taxation. 

55 Pope's Rape of the Lock. 

56 Tennyson's Elaine. 

57 Tennyson's In Memoriam. 

58 Church's Story of the .^neid. 

59 Church's Story of the Iliad. 

60 Swift's Gulliver's Voyage to 

Lilliput. 

61 Macaulay's EssaV on Lord Ba- 

con. (Condenseci.) 

62 The Alcestis of Euripides. En(?- 

lish Version by Bev. B. Potter,M. A. 



(Additional numbers on next page.) 



f 



-+ ^t 



aa.J7ii 



English Classic Series— continued. 



63 The Antigone of Sophocles. 

English Version by Thos. Franck- 
lin, D.D. 

64 Elizabeth Barrett Br«- -^^np-. 

(Selected Poems.) 

65 Robert Browning. (Selected 

Poems.) 

66 Addison, The Spectator. (Sel'ns.) 

67 Scenes from George Eliot's 

Adam Bede. 

68 Matthew Arnold's Culture and 

Anarchy. 
I 69 DeQuincey's Joan of Arc. 

70 Carlyle's Essay on Burns. 

71 Byron's Childe Harold's Pil- 

grimage. 
73 Poe's Raven» and other Poems. 
73 & 74 Macaulay's Lord Clive. 

(Double Number.) 
75 Webster's Keply to Hayne. 



76 & 77 Macaulay's r.ays of Ai 
cient Home. (Double Number 

78 American Patriotic Selections 

Declaration of Independenc< 
Washington's Farewell A r, 
dress, Lincoln's Gettysbi 
Speech, etc. 

79 & 80 Scott's Lady of the La 

(Condensed.) 
81 & 83 Scott's Marmion. (C 

densed.) 
83 & 84 Pope's Essay on Man. 

85 Shelley's Skylark, Adonais, > 

other Poems. 

86 Dickens's Cricket on ' 

Hearth. (In preparation.) 

87 Spencer's Philosophy of Sty 

(In preparation.) 

88 Lamh's Essays of Ella. 

preparation.) 



Single numbers, 32 to 64 pp. Mailing price, 12 cents per copy. 
Double numbers, 75 to 128 p2>. Mailing price, 24 cents per cop'^ 




Special Prices to Teachers. 



)l^ 



SPECIAL NUMBERS. 
Milton's Paradise Lost. Book I. With portrait and b 

graphical sketch of Milton, essay on his genius, epitome of the views of the b* 
known critics, Milton's verse, argument, and full introductory and explanati 
notes. Bound in boards. Mailing price, 30 cents. 

Milton's Paradise Lost. Books I. and II. With portrait a 

biographical sketch of Milton, his verse; essay on his genius, epitome of the vit 
of the best-known critics, argument, and full introductory ancl explanatory noi 
Bound in boards. Mailing price, 40 cents. 

Wykes's Shakespeare Reader. Being extracts from 1 

Plays of Shakespeare, with introductory paragraphs, and grammatical, histori* 
and explanatory notes. By C. H. Wykks. 160 pp., 16mo, cloth. Mailing pr 
35 cents. 

Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. The Prologue. 1 

text collated with the seven oldest MSS., a portrait and biographical sketch of 
author, introductory notices, grammar, critical and explanatory notes, index 
obsolete and difficult words, argument and characters of the prologue, brief hist 
of English language to time of Chaucer, and glossary. Bound in boards. Mail 
price, 35 cents. 

Chaucer's The Squieres Tale. With portrait and biograj 

ical sketch of author, introduction to his grammar and versification, glossary, 
arnination papers, and full explanatory notes. Bound iu boards. Mailing pr, 
35 cents. 

Chaucer's The Knightes Tale. With portrait and b 

graphical sketch of author, essay on his language, history of the English langu^ 
to time of Chaucer, glossary, and full explanatory notes. Bound in boards. Mc 
in g price, 40 cents. 

Goldsmith's She Stoops to Conquer. With biographi( 

sketch of author, introduction, dedi(!ation, Garrick's Prologue, epilogue and thi 
intended epilogues, and full explanatory' notes. Bound in boards. Mailing pri 
30 cents. 

Full Descriptive Catalogue sent on application. 



